RE: ISSUE-109 (inconsistent handling of profile conflicts): Proposal to unify handling of profile conflicts. [DFXP 1.0]

actually, it is not inconsistent; it is intentionally different: it is
one thing to define an internally consistent definition of a profile, it
is another thing to logically express that more than one profile is
intended to be satisfied; the differences in the language reflect these
two distinct intents;

no change is required;

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-tt-request@w3.org [mailto:public-tt-request@w3.org] On
Behalf Of Timed Text
> Working Group Issue Tracker
> Sent: Saturday, May 23, 2009 5:57 AM
> To: public-tt@w3.org
> Subject: ISSUE-109 (inconsistent handling of profile conflicts):
Proposal to unify
> handling of profile conflicts. [DFXP 1.0]
> 
> 
> ISSUE-109 (inconsistent handling of profile conflicts): Proposal to
unify handling of
> profile conflicts. [DFXP 1.0]
> 
> http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/tracker/issues/109
> 
> Raised by: Sean Hayes
> On product: DFXP 1.0
> 
> The following language appears in the definition of the profile
element:
> 
> "If more than one ttp:profile element appears in a TT AF document
instance, then all
> specified profiles apply simultaneously. In such a case, if some
feature or some
> extension is specified by one profile to be required (mandatory) and
by another profile
> to be optional (voluntary), then that feature or extension must be
considered to be
> required (mandatory)."
> 
> This is inconsistent (and for no obvious reason) with the case where
the same element is
> multiply defined within a single <profile> element; where the language
below applies.
> This requires two different types of handling in the processor where
one would suffice
> if the handling were unified.
> 
> "for each ttp:feature and ttp:extension element descendant of the
ttp:profile element,
> using a post-order traversal, merge the specified feature or extension
with the features
> and extensions of the profile, where merging a feature or extension
entails replacing an
> existing feature or extension specification, if it already exists, or
adding a new
> feature or extension specification, if it does not yet exist in the
profile;"
> 
> propose to replace the latter language with something to the effect
of:
> 
> for each ttp:feature and ttp:extension element descendant of the
ttp:profile element,
> using a post-order traversal, merge the specified feature or extension
with the features
> and extensions of the profile, where merging a feature or extension
entails adding it if
> it does not yet exist in the profile; or where it does exist in the
profile and one
> designation denotes it required (mandatory) and the other optional
(voluntary), then
> that feature or extension must be made required (mandatory) in the
profile.
> 
> (the alternate would be to treat the profile elements in document
order would also be
> acceptable)
> 
>

Received on Wednesday, 27 May 2009 01:40:23 UTC