Issue 252.

In issue 252 you have gone (by my reading) from a non-mutually exclusive system,  viz : “one of two (non-mutually exclusive) manners”
So <metadata ttm:foo ><ttm:xxx>…</ttm:x></metadata>

was legal, and now isnt. Why have you removed the ‘non’? This seems like a breaking change with no motivation. I’m not sure why you want to enforce exclusivity, especially given the schemas aren’t up to doing so?

From: Glenn Adams [mailto:glenn@skynav.com]
Sent: 19 June 2013 10:23
To: public-tt
Subject: Re: TTML 1.0 Issues - Newly Moved to Pending Review

Also moving to pending review (just fixed):

https://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/tracker/issues/221


On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 4:44 PM, Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com<mailto:glenn@skynav.com>> wrote:
Also moving to pending review (just fixed);

https://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/tracker/issues/222


On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 4:03 PM, Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com<mailto:glenn@skynav.com>> wrote:
Also moved to pending review, fixed previously (May 26)

https://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/tracker/issues/216


On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 3:55 PM, Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com<mailto:glenn@skynav.com>> wrote:
I've now moved the following to pending review status:

https://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/tracker/issues/218

https://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/tracker/issues/219

https://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/tracker/issues/220

https://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/tracker/issues/223

https://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/tracker/issues/251

https://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/tracker/issues/252

Received on Wednesday, 19 June 2013 09:45:52 UTC