- From: Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com>
- Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2014 10:01:51 -0600
- To: Nigel Megitt <nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk>
- Cc: Timed Text Working Group <public-tt@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CACQ=j+d5WcAKuo_6ARb545MWjc7hEn2E34K74T8OHBje_EBHcg@mail.gmail.com>
I mean all of 3.2.1. On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 9:26 AM, Nigel Megitt <nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk> wrote: > On 01/08/2014 15:46, "Glenn Adams" <glenn@skynav.com> wrote: > > Seems a bit wordy, but OK. > > > Yeah I tried to go for accuracy and got verbosity as an added 'feature'. > > > It would probably be good to require an IMSC processor to satisfy the > generic processor conformance rules of TTML. > > You mean bullets 1, 2 and 3 of Section 3.2.1 in TTML 1 SE? I think > bullets 4 and 5 are already covered. > > > > On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 7:19 AM, Nigel Megitt <nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk> > wrote: > >> As discussed yesterday, I propose the following wording for a >> non-normative note to be added to section 3. Conformance of IMSC: >> >> <-- >> NOTE >> The terms Presentation Processor and Transformation Processor are defined >> by [TTML1] in general terms and more specifically with requirements for >> conformance with reference to the DFXP Presentation Profile and >> Transformation Profile. The use of those terms in this document does not >> imply that conformance to both the profiles defined herein *and* the >> relevant DFXP profile is required. It is not considered an error for a >> processor to be a conformant presentation processor or transformation >> processor in the context of this document without being a conformant TTML >> presentation processor or transformation processor. >> --> >> >> Kind regards, >> >> Nigel >> >> >> >
Received on Friday, 1 August 2014 16:02:40 UTC