Re: Call for Consensus: publication of IMSC vNext Requirements as a WG Note

Hi Glenn,

> ttp:displayAspectRatio
>  tts:inlineAreaBreak
> how will smpte:backgroundImage be mapped from 1.0.1
> [...]
>  but perhaps it is not intended that this req doc list every new TTML2 feature that will eventually be required to support "deprecated" 1.0.1 features?

Yes. These fall under Section 1.3.

> would like to see a requirement to identify an IMSCvNext document as such, e.g., by using some combination of ttp:profile and/or ttp:version

Yes. I have opened an issue.

> tts:fontVariant is needed to select half vs full variants in Japanese text, and useful for sub/superscript as well;

I have opened an issue. Is this preferable over using half-width
unicode characters?

Best,

-- Pierre

On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 3:10 AM, Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com> wrote:
> Just reviewing this for first time, my comments:
>
> would like to see a requirement to identify an IMSCvNext document as such,
> e.g., by using some combination of ttp:profile and/or ttp:version
> surprised not to see the following included
>
> ttp:displayAspectRatio
>
> how will smpte:backgroundImage be mapped from 1.0.1 to use TTML2 compatible
> features if support for TTML2 image element is not required? but perhaps it
> is not intended that this req doc list every new TTML2 feature that will
> eventually be required to support "deprecated" 1.0.1 features?
> suggest adding ttp:version
> tts:inlineAreaBreak?
> tts:fontVariant is needed to select half vs full variants in Japanese text,
> and useful for sub/superscript as well;
>
>
> On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 3:29 AM, Nigel Megitt <nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk>
> wrote:
>>
>> To assist with external communications about IMSC v1.1 it would be helpful
>> if we could publish https://w3c.github.io/imsc-vnext-reqs/ as a WG Note as
>> soon as possible.
>>
>> PROPOSAL: Publish https://w3c.github.io/imsc-vnext-reqs/ as a WG Note.
>>
>> I would like to make this a Resolution in the next TTWG call if there are
>> no objections, with a planned publication date 1 week later (so the Decision
>> policy review period effectively begins now). Any advanced positive
>> confirmation in response to this call from sufficient active members, or
>> indeed any objections, would be helpful in achieving a rapid decision.
>>
>> Kind regards,
>>
>> Nigel
>>
>>
>>
>> ----------------------------
>>
>> http://www.bbc.co.uk
>> This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and may contain personal
>> views which are not the views of the BBC unless specifically stated.
>> If you have received it in error, please delete it from your system.
>> Do not use, copy or disclose the information in any way nor act in
>> reliance on it and notify the sender immediately.
>> Please note that the BBC monitors e-mails sent or received.
>> Further communication will signify your consent to this.
>>
>> ---------------------
>
>

Received on Sunday, 22 October 2017 00:05:56 UTC