W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-tt@w3.org > August 2014

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

From: Nigel Megitt <nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk>
Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2014 15:26:33 +0000
To: Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com>
CC: Timed Text Working Group <public-tt@w3.org>
Message-ID: <D0016F62.20E52%nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk>
On 01/08/2014 15:46, "Glenn Adams" <glenn@skynav.com<mailto:glenn@skynav.com>> wrote:

Seems a bit wordy, but OK.

Yeah I tried to go for accuracy and got verbosity as an added 'feature'.

> It would probably be good to require an IMSC processor to satisfy the generic processor conformance rules of TTML.

You mean bullets 1, 2 and 3 of Section 3.2.1 in TTML 1 SE? I think bullets 4 and 5 are already covered.

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

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,

Received on Friday, 1 August 2014 15:27:14 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 5 October 2017 18:24:17 UTC