Re: more profile confusion

ok, that's a reasonable clarification; i agree that "if the document
interchange context does not specify a profile" is not sufficiently precise

On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 10:07 AM, Michael A Dolan <mdolan@newtbt.com> wrote:

> I agree with the spirit of what you say.  But as drafted, the
> Recommendation is using a defined term, “profile”, so I disagree that it
> does not, as drafted, require a profile document.  That’s the issue.  Even
> if you read it differently, the point is that others read it the same as I
> do, and therefore it needs clarification.  I proposed “conforming subset or
> something more generic”.  How about “…and if the document interchange
> context does not specify a profile document, or other equivalent set of
> feature designators,…”****
>
> ** **
>
> Whatever wording works for you is fine with me.  ****
>
> ** **
>
> Regards,****
>
> ** **
>
>                 Mike****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* Glenn Adams [mailto:glenn@skynav.com]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, June 06, 2012 8:49 AM
> *To:* Michael A Dolan
> *Cc:* public-tt@w3.org
>
> *Subject:* Re: more profile confusion****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 8:51 AM, Michael A Dolan <mdolan@newtbt.com> wrote:
> ****
>
> Another troubling profile sentence in 5.2 was called to my attention:****
>
>  ****
>
> If neitherttp:profile<http://www.w3.org/TR/ttaf1-dfxp/#parameter-attribute-profile>attribute
> norttp:profile<http://www.w3.org/TR/ttaf1-dfxp/#parameter-vocabulary-profile>element
> is present in a TTML document instance, and if the document interchange
> context does not specify a profile, then the DFXP Transformation profile
> applies.****
>
>  ****
>
> A “document interchange context” might well fully define a conforming
> subset definition, but it may or may not formally define a “profile” as
> defined in the recommendation.****
>
>  ****
>
> An instance document would more likely declare its conformance by some
> other means, such as reference to a schema, or using xml-model, or simply
> by its context (e.g. a branded MP4 file).****
>
>  ****
>
> When we get to overhauling the profile language, we should fix the above,
> minimally replacing “profile” with “conforming subset” or something more
> generic that does not imply a TTML Profile definition is required.****
>
> ** **
>
> Actually, I think I do not agree with this. The point of the above cited
> language is to ensure that the applicable profile is well defined, since it
> is necessary to know the applicable profile in order to perform processing
> in a compliant manner.****
>
> ** **
>
> As reference to a profile defined/specified by a document interchange
> context is intended to serve as a out-of-band protocol to allow
> determination of which profile applies. It does not mean that a ttp profile
> document must be available for either author or client, it means that the
> information that would be included in such a document is known is some
> manner, whether or not it is defined in a profile file.****
>
> ** **
>
> Finally, the phrase "conforming subset" has no formal meaning/use in TTML
> at present other than indirectly through the use of profile definitions.**
> **
>
> ** **
>