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

Re: more profile confusion ( ISSUE-170)

From: Andreas Tai <tai@irt.de>
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2012 13:45:10 +0200
Message-ID: <4FD87D46.2070801@irt.de>
To: Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com>, public-tt <public-tt@w3.org>
Thanks for taking this up. Background of the question is still, what the 
interpretation should be if no profile element or attribute was 
specified in a TTML document.

It would be interesting to know if current TTML processors are 
conformant TTML transformation and/or conformant TTML presentation 
processors.

Best regards,

Andreas
Am 13.06.2012 05:04, schrieb Glenn Adams:
>
> On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 9:21 AM, Andreas Tai <tai@irt.de 
> <mailto: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
>>     <mailto: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 <mailto: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
>>>             <mailto:glenn@skynav.com>]
>>>             *Sent:* Wednesday, June 06, 2012 8:49 AM
>>>             *To:* Michael A Dolan
>>>             *Cc:* public-tt@w3.org <mailto:public-tt@w3.org>
>>>
>>>
>>>             *Subject:* Re: more profile confusion
>>>
>>>             On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 8:51 AM, Michael A Dolan
>>>             <mdolan@newtbt.com <mailto:mdolan@newtbt.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>>             Another troubling profile sentence in 5.2 was called to
>>>             my attention:
>>>
>>>             If neither|ttp:profile|
>>>             <http://www.w3.org/TR/ttaf1-dfxp/#parameter-attribute-profile>attribute
>>>             nor|ttp: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  <tel:%2B49%2089%2032399-389>  | Fax:+49 89 32399-200  <tel:%2B49%2089%2032399-200>
>>         http:www.irt.de  <http://www.irt.de>  | Email:tai@irt.de  <mailto: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  <tel:%2B49%2089%2032399-389>  | Fax:+49 89 32399-200  <tel:%2B49%2089%2032399-200>
>     http:www.irt.de  <http://www.irt.de>  | Email:tai@irt.de  <mailto: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 11:52:11 UTC

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