W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-tt@w3.org > June 2012

Re: more profile confusion ( ISSUE-170)

From: Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2012 11:42:46 -0600
Message-ID: <CACQ=j+dVQjdwPAc-+WFMSzXjp37Xp9YXzVHvYybo=p2pxd_QJw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Andreas Tai <tai@irt.de>
Cc: Michael A Dolan <mdolan@newtbt.com>, public-tt@w3.org
On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 9:27 AM, Andreas Tai <tai@irt.de> wrote:

>  From my reading the profile mechanism is a TTML feature itself and can be
> optional. So if the context make the profile mechanism optional it is not
> needed for a TTML processor to implement it. Am I correct?
>

yes, #profile is an enumerated feature [1]

[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/ttaf1-dfxp/#feature-profile

however, it is also a mandatory feature for both transformation [2] and
presentation [3] profiles

[2] http://www.w3.org/TR/ttaf1-dfxp/#feature-transformation-mandatory-table
[3] http://www.w3.org/TR/ttaf1-dfxp/#feature-presentation-mandatory-table

finally, a conformant transformation processor [4] and a conformant
presentation processor [5] are obliged to support the transformation and
presentation profiles, respectively

[4] http://www.w3.org/TR/ttaf1-dfxp/#conformance-transformation-processor
[5] http://www.w3.org/TR/ttaf1-dfxp/#conformance-presentation-processor

so, when you ask "it is not needed for a TTML processor to implement it",
then the answer is yes if you mean either a "conformant TTML transformation
processor" or a "conformant TTML presentation processor"


>
> Furthermore it maybe a possibility for TTML 1.1 to reflect on the profile
> mechanism with respect to it´s implementation by TTML users/processors.
>

what I think you may be asking here is whether a TTML processor may be a
"conformant TTML generic processor" [6], but neither a (conformant)
transformation processor nor a (conformant) presentation processor; is that
correct?

[6] http://www.w3.org/TR/ttaf1-dfxp/#conformance-generic-processor


>
> Best regards,
>
> Andreas
>
> Am 06.06.2012 18:28, schrieb Glenn Adams:
>
> 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.
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> ------------------------------------------------
> Andreas Tai
> Production Systems Television IRT - Institut fuer Rundfunktechnik GmbH
> R&D Institute of ARD, ZDF, DRadio, ORF and SRG/SSR
> Floriansmuehlstrasse 60, D-80939 Munich, Germany
>
> Phone: +49 89 32399-389 | Fax: +49 89 32399-200
> http: www.irt.de | Email: tai@irt.de
> ------------------------------------------------
>
> registration court&  managing director:
> Munich Commercial, RegNo. B 5191
> Dr. Klaus Illgner-Fehns
> ------------------------------------------------
>
>
Received on Monday, 11 June 2012 17:43:37 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:06:04 UTC