W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-tt@w3.org > May 2014

ISSUE-307 (Profile and conformance terminology): Conformance language and processor profile rather than content profile. [TTML IMSC 1.0]

From: Timed Text Working Group Issue Tracker <sysbot+tracker@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 02 May 2014 15:28:26 +0000
Message-Id: <E1WgFNy-0000GF-R2@stuart.w3.org>
To: public-tt@w3.org
ISSUE-307 (Profile and conformance terminology): Conformance language and processor profile rather than content profile. [TTML IMSC 1.0]

http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/tracker/issues/307

Raised by: Nigel Megitt
On product: TTML IMSC 1.0

In the context of TTML1, which uses the term profile to define minimal processor features it is confusing in IMSC 1 to use this term to define maximal content features.

This problem will also need to be solved editorially in TTML2, which will support both content and processor profiles. In the meantime the IMSC 1 profiles should be defined in terms of minimal processor features required to support documents containing either text or images.

For example section 4.8 describes features but does not list the required and optional processor features in a similar format to TTML 1 [1]. See for example the relevant section of SDP-US [2].

[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/ttml1/#profiles
[2] http://www.w3.org/TR/ttml10-sdp-us/#Features_in_TTML_1.0_Used

Where new terms with associated semantics and syntax are introduced, for example ttp:progressivelyDecodable, it would be more consistent to use similar language to that in TTML1 such as "If specified, the value of this attribute must adhere to the following syntax:" rather than "The ttp:progressivelyDecodable attribute shall conform to the following syntax:".

Arguably these are two separate issues but there should be a single editorial effort to fix rather than two passes, so lodging them together as one.
Received on Friday, 2 May 2014 15:28:30 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 5 October 2017 18:24:15 UTC