Re: ACTION-318: Draft note wording for imsc conformance

Seems a bit wordy, but OK. It would probably be good to require an IMSC
processor to satisfy the generic processor conformance rules of TTML.


On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 7:19 AM, Nigel Megitt <nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk> wrote:

>  As discussed yesterday, I propose the following wording for a
> non-normative note to be added to section 3. Conformance of IMSC:
>
>  <--
> NOTE
> The terms Presentation Processor and Transformation Processor are defined
> by [TTML1] in general terms and more specifically with requirements for
> conformance with reference to the DFXP Presentation Profile and
> Transformation Profile. The use of those terms in this document does not
> imply that conformance to both the profiles defined herein *and* the
> relevant DFXP profile is required. It is not considered an error for a
> processor to be a conformant presentation processor or transformation
> processor in the context of this document without being a conformant TTML
> presentation processor or transformation processor.
> -->
>
>  Kind regards,
>
>  Nigel
>
>
>