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: Mon, 4 Aug 2014 10:37:21 +0000
To: Pierre-Anthony Lemieux <pal@sandflow.com>, Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com>
CC: Timed Text Working Group <public-tt@w3.org>
Message-ID: <D0051067.20F02%nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk>
Your note wording is:

"The use of the terms presentation processor (transformation processor) do
not imply conformance to the DFXP Transformation Profile (DFXP
Transformation Profile) specified in [TTML1]. In other words, it is not
considered an error for a presentation processor (transformation
processor) to conform to a profile defined in this specification without
also conforming to the DFXP Transformation Profile (DFXP Transformation
Profile)."

I suggest adding "within this document" before "do not imply" to make
clear that this note is not a gloss on TTML 1 SE but is a clarification of
IMSC.

Also there's a typo in the last sentence - I think you means "DFXP
Presentation Profile (DFXP Transformation Profile)."

Other than that, looks good to me (and less wordy than my proposal),

Nigel


On 02/08/2014 09:34, "Pierre-Anthony Lemieux" <pal@sandflow.com> wrote:

>Addressed at 
>https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/ttml/diff/dffe001fa4c8/ttml-ww-profiles/ttml-ww-pro
>files.source.html
>
>On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 6:01 PM, Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com> wrote:
>> 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 Monday, 4 August 2014 10:38:07 UTC

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