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

Re: Draft TTML Codecs Registry - Issue-305

From: Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com>
Date: Mon, 19 May 2014 19:59:57 +0900
Message-ID: <CACQ=j+dF7Tsi1F+NQ0ygLSkfxuO1HVwXtey2RTr95ruLC=Zj=w@mail.gmail.com>
To: John Birch <John.Birch@screensystems.tv>
Cc: "nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk" <nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk>, "mdolan@newtbt.com" <mdolan@newtbt.com>, "public-tt@w3.org" <public-tt@w3.org>
On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 6:24 PM, John Birch <John.Birch@screensystems.tv>wrote:

>  Hi Glenn,
>
>
>
> For me Validation is the highest priority. Current workflows for audio /
> visual presentations, regardless of delivery mechanism, all rely upon
> validation of the content.
>

ok, i have no problem with your priority; however, nothing to date in TTML
defines validation processing, so you seem to be articulating a priority
that isn't justified by the spec


>  *The ground rule is that all the content is validated and therefore will
> work on a mandatorily compliant processor / decoder that must include the
> features required for the content profile …*
>

that is a wrong assumption; i have said it before and will say it again...
an feature that is optional in content may or may not be supported by a
processor; so saying a document is valid makes no statement about whether a
processor supports the features used by the document;


>
>
> There is no scope (or concept) of the decoding processor needing to make
> decisions about whether it can process the content, or what it should do
> with parts of the content it does not understand.
>

i'm not sure what you mean by this, since it flies in the face of what is
specified in TTML1;



>  These concepts are superfluous non-issues when a) all content is
> validated to an agreed specification… b) all processors / decoders are
> expected to handle all features of that specification, c) any intentional
> graceful degradation of capabilities (features) is already built into the
> specification.
>

it is not true that all processors are expected to handle all features of a
specification; if you have made that assumption, then you are being
presumptuous


>
>
> Thus, for me the two crucial priorities are a mechanism to allow effective
> validation and a mechanism to allow effective specification (by sub-setting
> of TTML features and the usage of those features).
>

ok, stay tuned on the former; as for the latter, you need to be more
specific about what you see missing if you want me to address it


>
>
> I appreciate that you are tackling the generic case of an ‘unknown
> provenance content’ being decoded by a ‘processor with unknown (to the
> author) capabilities’.
>

that is not what i'm tackling


> However, deployed standards derived from TTML operate in deliberately
> constrained patterns, patterns that intentionally reduce the potential for
> mismatches between content creation and content presentation.
>

IMO, that is a naive pov


>
>
> RE: Now, if I author content using tts:opacity in a way that conforms to
> a content profile, then that says nothing whatsoever about whether a
> presentation processor will actually implement and use that opacity when
> presenting content. This is why a process profile declaration is important.
> It allows me to say: only present this on a processor that understands and
> uses opacity. This is not a specious use case.
>
>
>
> I cannot imagine a situation (in deployed AV broadcast workflows using
> TTML derived standards) where a content author would actually use a feature
> that might not be present in all the targeted decoders…
>

nothing about defining a content profile implies a decoder must support
every feature potentially used by that content profile; if you are assuming
the opposite, then you are presumptuous or naive


> the need for ‘content to present’ would pretty much dictate the use of the
> lowest common denominator of features that the author has experienced as
> working in the majority of decoders. This has been proven in practise. So I
> think the above is only half the use case, the second part of this use case
> would be provide a mechanism for alternative behaviour.
>

i'm not sure what this means


>
>
> I.e., should an author deliberately wish to use advanced features, I
> believe they would do so only if there was a clear ‘fall back strategy’,
> this would either be implemented as part of the specification… e.g.
> “opacity if not supported should be presented as fully opaque”, or by
> putting a switch in the content along the lines of “if processor supports
> opacity then X, else Y”.
>

TTML has no conditional/switch mechanism at present, though it does specify
fallback semantics for each renderable style property


> A classic example of a fall back strategies deployed in previous timed
> text implementations is the Teletext mechanism for extending the character
> set of basic Teletext to include accented characters. In this mechanism a
> basic level ‘base character’ is transmitted, and then the extended accent
> character is transmitted… the extended characters have an intrinsic
> backspace, so advanced decoders overwrite the base character… basic
> decoders do not eat the extended characters so they remain displaying the
> base character.
>

ok, but not relevant


>
>
> RE: Furthermore, if a document that uses opacity does not declare (or
> otherwise signal) a processor profile, but only a content profile, then a
> process that infers the former from the latter is ambiguous (without
> further directives) since it is not a logical conclusion that support for
> opacity must be present in a processor when the use of opacity in content
> is optional. This is where I suggested in a previous thread the need for
> something like:
>
>
>
> I see no strong use case for supporting a situation where a content
> profile defines a feature as optional and processors are then free to
> either support that feature or not.
>

well, that's the way it is; in TTML1, there is no such thing as a content
profile anyway; in TTML2 one will be able to define both processor profiles
and content profiles and then associate a document with these profiles;
however, these profiles make different kinds of statements; one will be
able to infer a processor profile from a content profile, but the default
mapping will map an optional content feature to optional processor support,
and not optional content feature to required processor support; there will
be a parameter that can be used to select the latter mapping, but the
former will be the default mapping;


> This would result in a situation where some content that conforms to the
> content profile would display correctly (by which I mean as intended) on
> some compliant processors, but not display correctly on other processors
> that could still be called compliant.
>

that's right;


> That is not a route to ‘interoperability of content’.
>

you are confusing content interoperability with processing behavior
interoperability


> So I contend that it is ‘logical’ to conclude as a practical implementer
> that if a feature is optional in content I should support it in my
> processor, since ‘logically’ I may be expected to decode content that may
> include that feature.
>

that is one possible conclusion, but not one that matches how the Web
works; Web specifications define many optional features and processors may
or may not do anything with them; the purpose of the TTML1 and following
processor profile is to allow that author to ask for more than this default


>
>
> I can however see some small utility in being able to say ‘this feature is
> not used in this document instance’ – since that might allow a processor to
> optimise itself for processing that document instance, (e.g. by not loading
> heavy libraries of code etc.). However, I am unconvinced that most
> processor implementations would dynamically adapt to each document instance.
>

they won't, but by distinguishing processor profile support from content
profile usage, one can begin to have a concrete way of specifying
requirements for decoding/processing behavior instead of making assumptions
about how a processor supports optional content features


>
>
> RE my closing comment “"strategy for TTML2 that requires general web
> access, etc." – what I meant is that any new capabilities in TTML2 that are
> defined to address these issues need to be non-referential. I.e. it must be
> possible to have content that can be validated independently of the
> Internet, and processors that can determine the requirements to decode any
> content without access to the internet.
>

one has to distinguish between referencing an external resource, such as an
externally defined profile specification, and mandating that the external
resource be fetched and used during processing; TTML1 and 2 makes the
former possible, but doesn't mandate the latter; so nothing is changing in
that regard;


> Further, the process of determining processing requirements should be
> lightweight, since the processors are in many deployed cases likely to be
> operating in constrained environments.
>

determining if a processor supports a specified processor profile is a much
smaller overhead than validation of a content profile (as you assign
priority); at the lower boundary, a decoder need only evaluate a
ttp:profile attribute and determine if its value lies in a list of
supported processor profiles; simple with hardly any overhead;


>
>
> With best regards,
>
> John
>
>
>
>
> *John Birch | Strategic Partnerships Manager | Screen *Main Line : +44
> 1473 831700 | Ext : 2208 | Direct Dial : +44 1473 834532
> Mobile : +44 7919 558380 | Fax : +44 1473 830078
> John.Birch@screensystems.tv | www.screensystems.tv |
> https://twitter.com/screensystems
>
>
> *Visit us at Broadcast Asia, Marina Bay Sands, Singapore 17-20 June, Stand
> 5E4-01*
>
> *P** Before printing, think about the environment*
>
> *From:* Glenn Adams [mailto:glenn@skynav.com]
> *Sent:* 18 May 2014 22:46
> *To:* John Birch
> *Cc:* nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk; mdolan@newtbt.com; public-tt@w3.org
>
> *Subject:* Re: Draft TTML Codecs Registry - Issue-305
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sun, May 18, 2014 at 5:39 PM, John Birch <John.Birch@screensystems.tv>
> wrote:
>
> An extremely important context for content profile is for an 'application'
> (validator) to be able to determine if any given document conforms to a
> specific profile. Note this is not necessarily the same as that application
> being able to decode or present the document.
>
>
>
> I've already stated that validation is a use case for content profile.
> However, we have yet to specify validation semantics for a TTML Content
> Processor, though it is on my list to add a @validation property.
>
>
>
>
> In fact the 'processor A can determine if it can decode document X' debate
> is somewhat specious, since (at least in the context of most current TTML
> derived specifications) most processors should be able to safely assume
> that the documents they are 'asked' to decode conform to a specific
> 'standard', having been passed through a validation step before being
> presented.
>
>
>
> The ability to decode is not as important as the ability to process the
> explicit/implied semantics of a particular feature/extension. All TTML
> processors must be able to instantiate an abstract TTML document instance,
> so, in that sense, every processor can decode any TTML profile. It is
> whether they do something with what they decode that is relevant.
>
>
>
> It is not specious to state that a content author may wish to ensure that
> a processor will support (respect) the semantics of some feature. For
> example, take the #opacity feature, as denoted by the tts:opacity style
> attribute. This is an optional feature in all content profiles defined thus
> far. Optional in the sense that it may be used but need not be used.
>
>
>
> Now, if I author content using tts:opacity in a way that conforms to a
> content profile, then that says nothing whatsoever about whether a
> presentation processor will actually implement and use that opacity when
> presenting content. This is why a process profile declaration is important.
> It allows me to say: only present this on a processor that understands and
> uses opacity. This is not a specious use case.
>
>
>
> Furthermore, if a document that uses opacity does not declare (or
> otherwise signal) a processor profile, but only a content profile, then a
> process that infers the former from the latter is ambiguous (without
> further directives) since it is not a logical conclusion that support for
> opacity must be present in a processor when the use of opacity in content
> is optional. This is where I suggested in a previous thread the need for
> something like:
>
>
>
> ttp:inferProcessorProfileMethod = (loose|strict) : loose
>
>
>
> where loose maps optional content features to optional support in
> processor profile, and strict maps optional in content to required in
> processor. The fact that such a directive is required demonstrates that
> content profiles and processor profiles are different and must be treated
> so.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Why, because typical current TTML decoders are operating in constrained
> environments. Usually restricted access to the web. Speed expectations of
> decoding and limited Cpu and memory. IMHO a strategy for TTML2 that
> requires general web access, or anticipates building upon extensive web
> infrastructures and code bases will not resolve the issues faces by current
> TTML implementations in Smart TV, disc/pvr players or set-top boxes.
>
>
>
> I'm not sure where this latter sentence is coming from. What do you refer
> to when you say "strategy for TTML2 that requires general web access, etc."?
>
>
>
>
> Best regards,
> John
>
>
>
> *From*: Glenn Adams [mailto:glenn@skynav.com]
>
> *Sent*: Sunday, May 18, 2014 02:39 AM GMT Standard Time
> *To*: Nigel Megitt <nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk>
> *Cc*: Michael Dolan <mdolan@newtbt.com>; TTWG <public-tt@w3.org>
> *Subject*: Re: Draft TTML Codecs Registry - Issue-305
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 2:51 AM, Nigel Megitt <nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
> On 15/05/2014 23:45, "Glenn Adams" <glenn@skynav.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>   Could you cite the exact documents/sections that you are referring to
> by "quoted text"?
>
>
>
> I was referring to the text from ISO/IEC 14496-12, AMD2 that Mike included
> in his email.
>
>
>
> I assume you refer to:
>
>
>
> From 14496-12, AMD2:
>
> namespace is a null-terminated field consisting of a space-separated
> list, in UTF-8 characters, of
> one or more XML namespaces to which the sample documents conform. When
> used for metadata,
> this is needed for identifying its type, e.g. gBSD or AQoS [MPEG-21-7] and
> for decoding using XML
> aware encoding mechanisms such as BiM.
>
> schema_location is an optional null-terminated field consisting of a
> space-separated list, in UTF-
> 8 characters, of zero or more URL’s for XML schema(s) to which the sample
> document conforms. If
> there is one namespace and one schema, then this field shall be the URL of
> the one schema. If there
> is more than one namespace, then the syntax of this field shall adhere to
> that for xsi:schemaLocation
> attribute as defined by [XML]. When used for metadata, this is needed for
> decoding of the timed
> metadata by XML aware encoding mechanisms such as BiM.
>
>
>
> This tells me nothing of why one would want to signal content profile or
> why one would want to communicate namespace usage separately (from XMLNS
> declarations found in the document).
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Regarding
>
>
>
> The processing behaviour may or may not be expressed in terms of
> TTML1-style profile features. There's no other language other than prose
> available for this purpose (that I know of).
>
>
>
> If a specification defines processing semantics that must be supported in
> order for a processor to conform to the specification, and if that
> specification does not define any feature/extension, then I would firstly
> view that as a broken specification; however, another potential
> interpretation is that the specification implies an otherwise unnamed
> feature/extension whose feature/extension designation corresponds to the
> profile designation. That is, the profile designation serves as a
> high-level, un-subdivided designation of the set of semantics mandated by
> compliance with the defined profile.
>
>
>
> Concerning 'broken' I note also TTML1SE §3.3 [1] does require an
> implementation compliance statement (ICS) to support claims of compliance –
> it would seem reasonable to require this as an input to the registration
> process. Or in TTML2 weaken this requirement.
>
>
>
> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/ttml1/#claims
>
>
>
>
>
> This might be a way out of this without having to have such specifications
> define individual, fine-grained feature/extension designations.
>
>
>
> Yes, that would be helpful to lower the barrier to entry.
>
>
>
>
>
> Anyway, I'm still waiting for a someone to articulate a use case for
> signaling a content profile, or any aspect of a content profile (e.g.,
> namespaces, schemas).
>
>
>
> Did Mike's email including the relevant sections from 14496-12 not do this?
>
>
>
> No, it does not. I repeat, signaling content profile can only have two
> purposes in the context of decoding/processing as far as I can tell:
>
>
>
> (1) to validate incoming document, which is not yet done by any TTML
> processor, though we are looking at adding a @validation attribute in TTML2
> that could be used to require this;
>
>
>
> (2) to imply a processor (decoder) profile in lieu of explicitly signaling
> of a processor profile;
>
>
>
> In the context of the current thread, it seems only the second of these is
> potentially relevant. However, I have to ask why one wouldn't simply signal
> a processor profile instead of using a more complex process of signaling a
> content profile and then having the decoder/processor infer a processor
> profile from that content profile.
>
>
>
> If there are other reasons for signaling content profile (in the context
> of the current thread) then I haven't seen them articulated.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 1:28 PM, Nigel Megitt <nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
>   Since namespaces and schemas define and constrain document contents
> without defining processing behaviour the quoted text defines a content
> profile declaration. It isn't asking for anything concerning specific
> processor capabilities but is merely describing  the contents of the
> document. The information may be used for downstream processing by context
> aware processors. The reference to namespace-aware compression makes clear
> that the mapping from whatever label scheme we choose to namespaces and
> schemas is important.
>
>
>
> However it's clear that we expect the receiving system to use the
> information to direct its processing, as described previously.
>
>
>
> Consider that the specification of a TTML variant x consists of the union
> of a content profile Cx and a description of processing behaviour Bx, which
> I'll express as S = C + B. The content profile shall itself reference one
> or more namespaces and schema locations. The processing behaviour may or
> may not be expressed in terms of TTML1-style profile features. There's no
> other language other than prose available for this purpose (that I know of).
>
>
>
> It is possible to define two specifications S1 and S2 where S1 = Cx + Bx
> and S2 = Cx + By, i.e. the same contents are processed with different
> behaviour. By the quoted text there is no need to differentiate between
> them from an ISO 14496 perspective. However we understand from our
> knowledge of the problem space that it may be useful to signal to a
> receiving system which behaviour set is desirable. And it may be helpful in
> a receiving system to differentiate between the available behaviours in
> order to provide the optimal experience.
>
>
>
> Would it be contrary to the spirit of the ISO wording to assign short
> labels each corresponding to some Specification, and for receiving systems
> to be expected to dereference (using a cached lookup table!) from those
> labels to the namespaces and schema locations contained within that
> specification's content profile? This would satisfy the ISO requirements
> and permit us to signal additionally the processor features and behaviours.
> At this stage the expression of those is not our concern – just that there
> is a document somewhere that describes how the implementation should work.
>
>
>
> Going back to the previous example, if a document conforms to Cx then it
> could be signalled either as S1 or S2 or both, and if the content provider
> has verified that presentation will be acceptable either way then both S1
> and S2 would be declared, otherwise just one of them (or neither if there's
> some other Sn that also uses Cx).
>
>
>
> With this scheme combinatorial logic wouldn't really make sense – you
> could infer something about unions and intersections of content profiles
> but since the language used to describe processor behaviours can't be
> mandated (okay it could in theory, but it wouldn't be accepted in practice)
> it wouldn't be a well defined operation. Incidentally this is in no way a
> critique of the effort put in by Glenn, and its outcomes, in terms of
> defining content and processor profiles – though it might be nice to verify
> that this simple expression can be expanded into that scheme should a
> specification writer choose to do so.
>
>
>
> This implies that every combination of content profiles and behaviours
> must be considered carefully and registered as a new specification with a
> new label. It also implies that if a document declares conformance with a
> set of specifications then it must conform to every member of the set of
> content profiles and it may be processed according to any one of the set of
> processing behaviours.
>
>
>
> The expression of that set is as described previously, where we pick our
> favourite delimiter out of a hat made out of ampersands.
>
>
>
> Also: this topic was discussed in summary briefly on the call today and a
> new suggestion arose, that some guidance for 'reasons why the TTWG would
> reject an application for registration' would be helpful. When requiring
> combinations to be registered separately there's a greater need to ensure
> that the registration process is quick and painless, and this guidance
> would help us and those who may follow to expedite it.
>
>
>
> Nigel
>
>
>
>
>
> On 15/05/2014 18:00, "Michael Dolan" <mdolan@newtbt.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>    I believe the problem statement is to replace the potentially unwieldy
> long strings in the namespace & schema_location fields defined in 14496-12
> and 14496-30 with a more compact string suitable for the DASH manifest
> codecs field.
>
>
>
> From 14496-12, AMD2:
>
>
>
> namespace is a null-terminated field consisting of a space-separated
> list, in UTF-8 characters, of
>
> one or more XML namespaces to which the sample documents conform. When
> used for metadata,
>
> this is needed for identifying its type, e.g. gBSD or AQoS [MPEG-21-7] and
> for decoding using XML
>
> aware encoding mechanisms such as BiM.
>
>
>
> schema_location is an optional null-terminated field consisting of a
> space-separated list, in UTF-
>
> 8 characters, of zero or more URL’s for XML schema(s) to which the sample
> document conforms. If
>
> there is one namespace and one schema, then this field shall be the URL of
> the one schema. If there
>
> is more than one namespace, then the syntax of this field shall adhere to
> that for xsi:schemaLocation
>
> attribute as defined by [XML]. When used for metadata, this is needed for
> decoding of the timed
>
> metadata by XML aware encoding mechanisms such as BiM.
>
>
>
> I’m warming up to the idea of requiring TTML content profiles be created
> for the combinations.
>
>
>
>                 Mike
>
>
>
>
> *John Birch | Strategic Partnerships Manager | Screen *Main Line : +44
> 1473 831700 | Ext : 2208 | Direct Dial : +44 1473 834532
> Mobile : +44 7919 558380 | Fax : +44 1473 830078
> John.Birch@screensystems.tv | www.screensystems.tv |
> https://twitter.com/screensystems
>
>
> *Visit us at Broadcast Asia, Marina Bay Sands, Singapore 17-20 June, Stand
> 5E4-01*
>
> *P** Before printing, think about the environment*
>
>
>
> *From:* Glenn Adams [mailto:glenn@skynav.com <glenn@skynav.com>]
> *Sent:* Thursday, May 15, 2014 9:15 AM
> *To:* Nigel Megitt
> *Cc:* Michael Dolan; TTWG
> *Subject:* Re: Draft TTML Codecs Registry
>
>
>
> My understanding from Dave was that the problem is how to answer the
> following method:
>
>
>
> boolean canPlay(String contentTypeWithParameters)
>
>
>
> I have not seen any statement of a problem that relates to signaling
> content conformance.
>
>
>
> As for requirements driving the ability to express a combination of
> profiles, we already have (in TTML1) and will have more (in TTML2) that
> permits a user to characterize processing requirements by means of a
> combination of existing profiles. Consequently, any shorthand signaling of
> first-order processor support needs to be able to repeat the expression of
> such combinations.
>
>
>
> I don't buy any "its too complex" argument thus far, primarily because
> nobody has stated what is (overly) complex in sufficient detail to
> understand if there is a problem or not.
>
>
>
> My perception of the TTML profile mechanism is that it is easy to
> understand and implement, and, further, that it is a heck of lot easier to
> understand and implement than XML Schemas.
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 9:58 AM, Nigel Megitt <nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
> Agreed there's a gulf of understanding/expectation that we need to bridge.
>
>
>
> Can anyone volunteer to draft a set of requirements for this
> functionality, in the first instance being the smallest set needed to meet
> the ISO specs? (Mike, I guess I'm thinking of you, following our discussion
> at the weekly meeting earlier)
>
>
>
>
>
> On 15/05/2014 16:48, "Glenn Adams" <glenn@skynav.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>  i can see this subject is not going to be resolved easily as we clearly
> have a large gap about requirements; e.g., i think there are no
> requirements to signal content conformance, but only client processor
> requirements, i think we must use the TTML profile mechanism, etc
>
> On Thursday, May 15, 2014, Michael Dolan <mdolan@newtbt.com> wrote:
>
> Maybe "highly undesirable", but if we don't address the A + B signaling
> explicitly, then profiles need to be created for all the combinitorics of
> namespaces in practice. Not the end of the world, but virtually prevents
> the
> simple signaling of 3rd party namespaces already provided by the
> namespace/schemaLocation mechanism today. No I am not proposing we use that
> - I am pointing out a deficiency in this proposal that we already address
> today in 14496.
>
> Anyway, we need to go through the points in my email a week ago - if not
> today, then on the 29th.
>
>         Mike
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Singer [mailto:singer@mac.com <singer@mac.com>]
> Sent: Thursday, May 15, 2014 5:20 AM
> To: Glenn Adams
> Cc: TTWG
> Subject: Re: Draft TTML Codecs Registry
>
> OK
>
> Though it will be a sub-parameter of the codecs parameter for the MP4 file
> type, from the point of view of TTML it's actually a profile short name
> registry rather than codecs registry, so I think we should rename it.
>
> the values here should be usable in both
> a) the profiles parameter for the TTML mime type
> b) the codecs parameter for the MP4 mime type
>
> so, also "named codecs" -> "named profiles"
>
>
>
> I agree with Cyril that we only need a single operator here (implement one
> of these profiles and you're good to go), both because we don't need the
> complexity, and because a "implement both/all of these" is effectively
> inviting file authors to make up new profiles ("to process this document
> you
> have to implement both A and B"), which is (IMHO) highly undesirable.
>
>
>
> On May 15, 2014, at 9:55 , Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com> wrote:
>
> > See [1].
> >
> > [1] https://www.w3.org/wiki/TTML/CodecsRegistry
>
> Dave Singer
>
> singer@mac.com
>
>
>
> ----------------------------
>
>
>
> 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 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.
>
> ---------------------
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> This message may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If
> you are not the intended recipient you must not use, copy, disclose or take
> any action based on this message or any information herein. If you have
> received this message in error, please advise the sender immediately by
> reply e-mail and delete this message. Thank you for your cooperation.
> Screen Subtitling Systems Ltd. Registered in England No. 2596832.
> Registered Office: The Old Rectory, Claydon Church Lane, Claydon, Ipswich,
> Suffolk, IP6 0EQ
>
>   ­­
>
>
>
>  This message may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If
> you are not the intended recipient you must not use, copy, disclose or take
> any action based on this message or any information herein. If you have
> received this message in error, please advise the sender immediately by
> reply e-mail and delete this message. Thank you for your cooperation.
> Screen Subtitling Systems Ltd. Registered in England No. 2596832.
> Registered Office: The Old Rectory, Claydon Church Lane, Claydon, Ipswich,
> Suffolk, IP6 0EQ
>    ­­
>
Received on Monday, 19 May 2014 11:00:49 UTC

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