RE: Regarding publishing SDP-US as a Note vs Rec

I’m not sure I see the fundamental difference between a (more detailed) profile defined in SDP-US and the current (crisp feature) profiles already defined in TTML Appendix F.

 

                Mike

 

From: Sean Hayes [mailto:Sean.Hayes@microsoft.com] 
Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2012 11:17 AM
To: Glenn Adams; Monica Martin (MS OPEN TECH)
Cc: public-tt@w3.org
Subject: RE: Regarding publishing SDP-US as a Note vs Rec

 

They could be standalone, but still done as part of the v2 push. I think there is a lot of merit in publishing relatively stable documents now for industry to use and get experience with before we put them on a rec process which could delay them by up to a year.

 

From: Glenn Adams [mailto:glenn@skynav.com] 
Sent: 6 Rhagfyr 2012 11:08
To: Monica Martin (MS OPEN TECH)
Cc: Sean Hayes; public-tt@w3.org
Subject: Re: Regarding publishing SDP-US as a Note vs Rec

 

I think I would object to incorporating profiles into ttml v.next. They should be independent specs IMO.

On Thu, Dec 6, 2012 at 10:27 AM, Monica Martin (MS OPEN TECH) <momartin@microsoft.com> wrote:

Glenn,

The intent is to push relevant changes from SDP-US into TTML v.next. The TTWG charter (http://www.w3.org/2012/07/ttml-charter.html) outlines the approach of developing a series of technical notes that feed into v.next.

 

Monica

 

From: Glenn Adams [mailto:glenn@skynav.com] 
Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2012 9:18 AM
To: public-tt
Subject: Regarding publishing SDP-US as a Note vs Rec

 

Please take a look at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2012Dec/0034.html, particularly the last paragraph. If SDP-US is going to be normatively referenced by other documents (within or without the W3C), then it probably should be a REC.