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

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

From: Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com>
Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2014 10:01:51 -0600
Message-ID: <CACQ=j+d5WcAKuo_6ARb545MWjc7hEn2E34K74T8OHBje_EBHcg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Nigel Megitt <nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk>
Cc: Timed Text Working Group <public-tt@w3.org>
I mean all of 3.2.1.


On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 9:26 AM, Nigel Megitt <nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk> wrote:

>  On 01/08/2014 15:46, "Glenn Adams" <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>
> 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
>>
>>
>>
>
Received on Friday, 1 August 2014 16:02:40 UTC

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