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

Re: more profile confusion ( ISSUE-170)

From: Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2012 21:04:16 -0600
Message-ID: <CACQ=j+cfrovwAQtH6qX26Qd4Ss9=J6Jv0HxF-jC=QJtjUyLJbg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Andreas Tai <tai@irt.de>
Cc: public-tt <public-tt@w3.org>
On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 9:21 AM, Andreas Tai <tai@irt.de> wrote:

>  Thanks for the helpful analysis, Glenn.
>
> Yes, at the end it is about a conformant TTML generic processor. Is it
> possible that a TTML generic processor does not support the profile feature
> (and hence is not a conformant transformation nor presentation processor)?
>

It is an open question in my mind, since, to my knowledge, we never
considered the idea of a TTML processor that conformed only to the generic
requirements, but not to either transformation/presentation processor
requirements. However, I don't see anything in TTML 1.0 that rules out such
an implementation, it's just that it could not claim to be either a
conforming transformation or presentation processor.


>
> Am 11.06.2012 19:42, schrieb Glenn Adams:
>
>
> 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
>> ------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> ------------------------------------------------
> 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 Wednesday, 13 June 2012 03:05:07 UTC

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