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

RE: Liaison response - template on MIME type parameter for TimedText

From: Michael Dolan <mdolan@newtbt.com>
Date: Tue, 6 May 2014 08:08:48 -0700
To: <public-tt@w3.org>
Message-ID: <011701cf693d$16ae7fd0$440b7f70$@newtbt.com>
I'm still not sure we're in agreement on what can be registered and signaled.  I maintain that any foreign namespace extensions must be permitted to be registered, not just "flavors" (profiles) of TTML.  It's not about whether W3C defined the profile or not.  It's about including registration and use of extensions.

Before we deal with versions of profiles and the other semantics, can we get closure on the above?


-----Original Message-----
From: Nigel Megitt [mailto:nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk] 
Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2014 7:39 AM
To: Michael Dolan; public-tt@w3.org
Subject: Re: Liaison response - template on MIME type parameter for TimedText

On 06/05/2014 13:22, "Michael Dolan" <mdolan@newtbt.com> wrote:

>I am not promoting namespace/schema over our agreed design approach of 
>the other day using profile strings, etc.

Glad we're agreed!

>However, I have to say that in #1, well, don't do that.  If it matters, 
>provide a different schema URI and call it something other than "ttml"
>(e.g. "imsc").  For #2, OK but those are basically the same unanswered 
>questions as for the profile design.

It seems to be considered good practice [2] to have mutable namespaces as long as they're declared as such, which is the case in TTML1. The specification versioning problem is unlikely to disappear, and requiring a change of namespace name for every new version of the same specification would probably cause more problems than it would solve.

[2] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/namespaceState.html#namespacedef

>I believe that we must be able to signal capabilities other than one or 
>more TTML profiles, e.g. "TTML" + required 3rd party namespace, or the 
>design will be mostly useless in  my opinion.  Constraining it to one 
>or more pure profiles of TTML will have limited application. We need to 
>resolve this before attempting semantic discussions about a constrained 

Again, agreed, though I'd make this more a logical concept than relating it to namespaces. The proposal on the table would permit other flavours of TTML than those published/recommended by W3C to be registered. I would propose that the decision "is this a flavour of TTML that we should register?" can be delegated to the TTWG and the W3C consensus process, after bringing a "request to register" to the group. Listing a format on a W3C registry page would merely log the usage of the short name and would not confer any stronger form of validation or endorsement of the listed format. I'd expect the group to reject any formats that do not appear to be a form of TTML at all.

Take for example EBU-TT-D: it uses a subset of TTML namespace features and additional EBU namespace features, and a fully conformant processor for this type should process both sets. However I wouldn't describe those namespaces in the short codes or the registry - I'd just say the equivalent of "this is TTML and this is EBU-TT-D" and leave the namespace issue to the receiving system. If it knows it can process EBU-TT-D then it must know about the EBU namespace already. If it is unaware of EBU-TT-D then it may choose to process as TTML and would in that case use the TTML rules and effectively discard the non-TTML namespace content.

Does this come down to a semantic question for the processor of 'processor must understand format Z' vs 'be warned that this document may contain features from format Z'? I don't wish to redefine what's already in TTML1SE and planned for TTML2 during parsing but we need to guide a pre-parsing decision with this information. Maybe we need a second operator additional to + that means 'and the processor must be able to process it', such as & (assuming that's a legal character in the codecs parameter).


 codecs = stpp.TTML.tt1f+ebuttd would tell the receiving system that it may encounter EBU-TT-D content, whereas

 codecs = stpp.TTML.tt1f&ebuttd would tell the receiving system that it must be able to process EBU-TT-D content.

In both cases the string after TTML begins with at least one TTML profile.
I'm not sure if that would always be possible.

Or maybe we don't need to do anything other than describe the contents and leave the rest up to the receiving system.

Kind regards,


>       Mike
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Nigel Megitt [mailto:nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk]
>Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2014 2:55 AM
>To: Michael Dolan; public-tt@w3.org
>Subject: Re: Liaison response - template on MIME type parameter for 
>There's a more substantive issue IMHO. Namespace and schemaLocation do 
>not adequately identify a particular variant of TTML, nor is it clear 
>how they should be derived. There are two issues, at least:
>1. If a profile uses a mutable namespace (which I would normally 
>expect) then different versions of the same profile will have the same 
>namespace and schemaLocation and thus not be distinguishable.
>2. It is unclear whether all of the namespaces used in a document must 
>be listed or just those that are relevant for downstream processing. If 
>a processor sees a namespace that was not listed what should it's 
>behaviour be? I do not believe that we are trying to create something 
>here that should have an impact during processing of the document; 
>rather the parameter can be used either to select an appropriate 
>document or to decide whether or not to download and process a document or ignore it.
>Similarly it should not be a requirement for the MP4 packager to parse 
>the document to work out all of the namespaces that are actually used.
>Returning to the current alternative proposal, I have a question about 
>the stpp.TTML.[short name1]+[short name 2]+[etc] idea: what is the 
>order of precedence if we use the + symbol?
>I can imagine stpp.TTML.DFXP+IMSC being interpreted either as "this 
>document is a DFXP TTML document and an IMSC TTML document" or "this 
>document is a DFXP TTML document and some other unregistered thing 
>called IMSC". Are we free to say that the + operator has higher 
>precedence than the . "operator" to ensure that the former interpretation holds?
>This isn't as obvious as it looks at first: in TTML §4 [1] we say 
>abstract document types can be validated by pruning all content in 
>non-TT namespaces. Consider an alternate format XX that has a similar 
>rule that prunes all non-XX namespace content. Someone constructs a 
>document that contains both TT namespace elements and XX namespace 
>elements at the top level. The document now serves dual purposes 
>(ignoring for the moment whether or not this is a good idea), and could 
>potentially be described either as "stpp.TTML.tt1f+stpp.XX" or as 
>"stpp.TTML.tt1f+XX" - which of these is correct depends on how we and 
>MPEG collectively define the syntax in the codecs parameter.
>[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/ttml1/#profiles
>In the current proposal there is no way to signal conformance to two 
>mutually independent XML formats that can legally be combined in the 
>same document.
>(in case you're wondering, no, I don't actually want to do this but I'm 
>just observing the effect of the undefined parts of the current 
>On 05/05/2014 14:58, "Michael Dolan" <mdolan@newtbt.com> wrote:
>>No one (I don't think) is opposed to addressing the issue.  And, I 
>>think W3C has accepted the ownership of its parts of it. The questions 
>>are about the technical details.
>>There already is a registered media type - "application/ttml-xml".  
>>So, one of my questions was essentially why not build on that?  Dave 
>>seems to prefer building on the MP4 4C code and I'm still studying the 
>>two approaches.
>>As you know, the namespaces and schemaLocations are already signaling 
>>at the
>>MP4 layer. They can be extracted into a codecs string, but there are 
>>apparently objections to the resulting length of the string.  I 
>>thought that was the only real issue being addressed, no?
>>      Mike
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Cyril Concolato [mailto:cyril.concolato@telecom-paristech.fr]
>>Sent: Monday, May 05, 2014 4:43 AM
>>To: public-tt@w3.org
>>Subject: Re: Liaison response - template on MIME type parameter for 
>>Hi all,
>>Some points worth highlighting/repeating:
>>- Aside from the MP4 problem, the problem is general. Consider a DASH 
>>MPD pointing to a TTML file (not packaged in a MP4). How can a player 
>>know that it'll be able to play it meaningfully without downloading 
>>the entire TTML file? Does it actually need to know or will it always 
>>be able to do something with a TTML file? The solution to this problem 
>>will provide the basis for the solution to the MP4 problem. Has the 
>>TTML WG considered defining a 'codecs' or 'profile' MIME parameter for 
>>- the codecs parameter of MP4 files is useful for identifying the 
>>content of each track in the file before the file is fully downloaded.
>>In Adaptive Streaming contexts such as DASH, the initialization 
>>segment can also be downloaded in a first step to get information. So 
>>the codecs parameter does not have to provide all information. It 
>>could just indicate that the track contains some flavor of TTML and 
>>let the initialization segment provide more details. In that case, the 
>>solution could be as simple
>>as: codecs="stpp.ttml"
>>- If more than TTML is needed, remember that a typical workflow for 
>>packaging/dashing is: get one (or more) TTML file, package it into an
>>(existing) MP4 file, produce an MPD from that MP4 file. Only in the 
>>last step is the 'codecs' parameter generated. In MSE cases, you don't 
>>even need the MPD but you need to get (most likely in JS) the codecs 
>>parameter to create the source buffer. Ideally, the TTML 'codecs'
>>string generator should not have to look at the content of the TTML 
>>document, only at the track sample entry (similar to AVC codecs 
>>03/05/2014 20:01, David Singer a écrit :
>>> On May 3, 2014, at 9:06 , Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com> wrote:
>>>> On Fri, May 2, 2014 at 12:23 PM, David Singer <singer@apple.com>
>>>> On Apr 30, 2014, at 16:40 , Michael Dolan <mdolan@newtbt.com> wrote:
>>>>> Nigel, Dave and all-
>>>>> Is there a TTWG Proposal?
>>>>> Would ³stpp² be registered somewhere where it would be unambiguous 
>>other Codecs strings unrelated to TTML?  I don¹t mean the sample entry 
>>4C code, but in the Codecs string namespace.  Wouldn¹t it have to be 
>>³application/mp4+stppŠ.²?  Or why not use ³application/ttml+xml² (and 
>>similar for WebVTT)?
>>>> The codecs string starts with the 4CC of the sample entry.  After 
>>>> that,
>>whoever defined that 4CC gets to say what¹s the next element.  And 
>>they get to say what¹s after that, and so on.
>>>> stpp says ³some sort of XML²,
>>>> since VTT isn't XML, then would it use something different from stpp?
>>> yes, we have different 4CCs for text-based and XML-based formats.
>>> stpp is for XML-based
>>>> and is owned by MPEG.  So indeed the step that goes from Œstpp¹ to 
>>sort of TTML¹ is owned by MPEG, and MPEG still needs to resolve this.
>>>> The thrust is that IF MPEG solves that, THEN there will be names to 
>>>> identify TTML dialects, that could go next.  So you would see
>>>> codecs=stpp.<some MPEG magic to say it is TTML
>>>> I would expect something more simple, e.g.
>>>> stpp.vtt
>>>> stpp.ttml.tt1f
>>>> stpp.ttml.tt1p
>>>> stpp.ttml.tt1t
>>>> stpp.ttml.sdpu
>>>> stpp.ttml.st10
>>>> stpp.ttml.st13
>>> indeed, MPEG is likely to say that TTML means ³go to the W3C, thou
>>sluggard, and be wise²
>>>> where we have a registry for mapping the third IDs above to TTML 
>>designators, e.g.
>>>> tt1f -> http://www.w3.org/ns/ttml/dfxp-full
>>>> tt1p -> http://www.w3.org/ns/ttml/dfxp-presentation
>>>> tt1t -> http://www.w3.org/ns/ttml/dfxp-transformation
>>>> tt1u -> http://www.w3.org/ns/ttml/sdp-us s10f -> 
>>>> http://www.smpte-ra.org/schemas/2052-1/2010/profiles/smpte-tt-full
>>>> s13f ->
>>>> http://www.smpte-ra.org/schemas/2052-1/2013/profiles/smpte-tt-full
>>>> we definitely do not want to create a new syntax/language for use 
>>>> in codecs that describes some way to combine profiles; that 
>>>> function is already defined by the ttml profile definition document 
>>>> syntax
>>> we¹re not, but we have to indicate somehow that a document is 
>>> compatible
>>with more than one profile.  we also are not restricted here to a 
>>4-character-name, so we can use slightly longer names if they are 
>>> we can¹t split into several entries as you suggest;  there is one 
>>> entry
>>per track, those separated by commas.
>>> codecs=stpp.ttml.tt1f,stpp.ttml.tt1p
>>> means two tracks, whereas
>>> codecs=stpp.ttml.tt1f+tt1p
>>> means one track compatible with two TTML profiles.  Big difference.
>>> (I am not wedded to plus, but comma and period are both taken
>>> already)
>>>> for example.
>>>> For the TTWG to say ³yes, we¹ll take on dialect naming and forming 
>>>> that
>>second-level parameter² is important; it then means that if MPEG finds 
>>a clean solution to the first level, the actual problem in hand is 
>>I¹d like the MP4 people to realize before the July meeting that this 
>>is urgent, and come up with ideas and maybe online discussion ASAP.
>>>> This is all provisional ‹ on the TTWG getting agreement not only
>>internally, but with the partners; and on us all liking the final 
>>result, of course.
>>>> Makes sense?
>>>>> I understand how one could signal profiles of TTML that a document
>>conformed to concurrently, as in the example ­ all of TTML and EBU-TT.
>>the signaling requirements go beyond that ­ there is often multiple 
>>namespaces in use in one document that are not, as an aggregate, a 
>>single ³profile². So, these must be explicitly signaled as well since 
>>nearly all profiles permit foreign namespaces.  To accommodate this, 
>>the ³short names² have to be defined as ³profiles of namespaces² I 
>>>>> For example, if a document uses the CFF-TT text profile of the 
>>>>>TTML Full
>>profile, plus SMPTE-TT #608 (US captions), plus CFF-TT metadata, and 
>>it was compatible with IMSC, SDP-US and EBU-TT, then it might look like:
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>                  Mike
>>>>> p.s. I would give the SC29 Secretary a hint about the target of 
>>>>> the
>>liaison (MPEG v JPEG).  And, you understand you will not receive a 
>>reply until mid-to-late July, right?
>>>>> From: Nigel Megitt [mailto:nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk]
>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2014 11:48 AM
>>>>> To: watanabe@itscj.ipsj.or.jp
>>>>> Cc: Timed Text Working Group
>>>>> Subject: Liaison response - template on MIME type parameter for 
>>>>> TimedText
>>>>> Dear Mr. Watanabe,
>>>>> Thank you for your liaison N14444 of April 2014.
>>>>> We think that we can indeed find a solution together.  We are 
>>>>> looking into creating a table of formal "short names" for the 
>>>>> profiles of W3C TTML and the profiles of formats derived from it 
>>>>> (such
>>as SMPTE-TT, EBU-TT, and so on).  If MPEG were to propose how to step 
>>from the four-character-code of the sample entry 
>>(XMLSubtitleSampleEntry and
>>XMLMetaDataSampleEntry) to something that identifies "a document 
>>compatible with one or more profiles of TTML", then we could propose a 
>>string composed of a set of one or more these short names as the next 
>>>>> For example, say W3C defines two profile short names "W3CTTML" and 
>>>>> "EBUTTML", and MPEG defines the name "TTML" as referring to the 
>>>>> overall family, one might see
>>>>> codecs=stpp.TTML.W3CTTML+EBUTTML,avc1
>>>>> as a codecs string of a file carrying AVC (H.264) and TTML 
>>>>> subtitles that are additionally EBU-TT conformant.
>>>>> We would check with those deriving from TTML (e.g. at SMPTE, EBU 
>>>>> and
>>DECE) if this approach and design are acceptable, before we formalise 
>>>>> Kind regards,
>>>>> Nigel Megitt, David Singer (chairs, Timed Text Working Group, W3C)
>>>>> --
>>>>> Nigel Megitt
>>>>> Lead Technologist, BBC Technology, Distribution & Archives
>>>>> Telephone: +44 (0)3030807996
>>>>> Internal (Lync): 0807996
>>>>> BC4 A3 Broadcast Centre, Media Village, 201 Wood Lane, London W12 
>>>>> 7TP
>>>>> ----------------------------
>>>>> http://www.bbc.co.uk
>>>>> This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and may contain
>>personal views which are not the views of the BBC unless specifically 
>>>>> If you have received it in error, please delete it from your system.
>>>>> Do not use, copy or disclose the information in any way nor act in
>>reliance on it and notify the sender immediately.
>>>>> Please note that the BBC monitors e-mails sent or received.
>>>>> Further communication will signify your consent to this.
>>>>> ---------------------
>>>> David Singer
>>>> Manager, Software Standards, Apple Inc.
>>> David Singer
>>> Manager, Software Standards, Apple Inc.
>>Cyril Concolato
>>Multimedia Group / Telecom ParisTech
>This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and may contain 
>personal views which are not the views of the BBC unless specifically 
>If you have received it in
>error, please delete it from your system.
>Do not use, copy or disclose the
>information in any way nor act in reliance on it and notify the sender 
>Please note that the BBC monitors e-mails sent or received.
>Further communication will signify your consent to this.

This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and may contain personal views which are not the views of the BBC unless specifically stated.
If you have received it in
error, please delete it from your system.
Do not use, copy or disclose the
information in any way nor act in reliance on it and notify the sender immediately.
Please note that the BBC monitors e-mails sent or received.
Further communication will signify your consent to this.
Received on Tuesday, 6 May 2014 15:09:32 UTC

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