- From: Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com>
- Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2014 10:18:25 -0600
- To: Nigel Megitt <nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk>
- Cc: TTWG <public-tt@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CACQ=j+f_+_6EzDhgLzhuQNEff_Br0jVoGWWDNgJdQSHy-WFmNQ@mail.gmail.com>
On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 9:52 AM, Nigel Megitt <nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk> wrote: > This is (mostly*) dependent on us closing Issue-259, which is dependent > on Pierre's review, as agreed in our meeting this afternoon. Others are at > liberty to review and comment too of course. > > So we should not put these errata to TR until Issue-259 is closed. When > it has been closed I'm happy for these errata to be considered part of the > solution to Issue-259 and push through ASAP after that. ASAP here is >= 10 > days after resolution of Issue-259 as per our charter. > > * By the way I didn't expect the use of zero duration to be permitted > via this errata document since it is a substantive change rather than a > clarification. Is there a pressing reason why it needs to be in TTML 1 and > can't wait until TTML 2? > I don't view it as a substantive change but rather a failure to document expected usage and prior intention. For example, we have: The *Root Temporal Extent*, i.e., the time interval over which a *Document > Instance* is active, has an implicit duration that is equal to the > implicit duration of the body element of the document, if the body element > is present, or zero, if the body element is absent. ... if the anonymous span's parent time container is a sequential time > container, then the implicit duration is equivalent to zero Further, syntactically, dur was defined to be a <timeExpression> which clearly allows dur="0s". So we are really just clarifying a pre-existing state: that we allow a duration of value 0. > > Kind regards, > > Nigel > > > On 17/07/2014 16:26, "Glenn Adams" <glenn@skynav.com> wrote: > > I have been updating the TTML1 Errata document in the repository [1], > and now have three additional items (see those marked as "published > 2014-07-17). We need to push these errata through to the TR page [2]. > > I would like for either (1) Thierry to push these to TR ASAP, or (2) > defer the push until we discuss in a teleconference. Nigel, please > recommend an approach. > > [1] > https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/ttml/raw-file/default/ttml1/spec/ttml1-errata.html > [2] http://www.w3.org/2013/09/ttml1-errata.html > >
Received on Thursday, 17 July 2014 16:19:13 UTC