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: Tue, 20 May 2014 23:46:24 +0900
Message-ID: <CACQ=j+etMp4Y_XivgbOt6a+33L_isimx4tcw2YS9vQKjkSyjag@mail.gmail.com>
To: Nigel Megitt <nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk>
Cc: Michael Dolan <mdolan@newtbt.com>, TTWG <public-tt@w3.org>
On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 11:34 PM, Nigel Megitt <nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk>wrote:

>
>
>   On 20/05/2014 15:06, "Glenn Adams" <glenn@skynav.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 10:07 PM, Nigel Megitt <nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk>wrote:
>
>>   On 20/05/2014 00:25, "Glenn Adams" <glenn@skynav.com> wrote:
>>
>>   On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 10:54 PM, Nigel Megitt <nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk>wrote:
>>
>>>   On 19/05/2014 12:35, "Glenn Adams" <glenn@skynav.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 8:15 PM, Nigel Megitt <nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk>wrote:
>>>
>>>>   On 19/05/2014 12:05, "Glenn Adams" <glenn@skynav.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>   On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 6:27 PM, Nigel Megitt <nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>  On 18/05/2014 02:39, "Glenn Adams" <glenn@skynav.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 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:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>  Correct.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>   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).
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>  The common text "When used for metadata, this is needed for …
>>>>> decoding using XML aware encoding mechanisms such as BiM." in both
>>>>> paragraphs appears to indicate the intended purpose of providing the
>>>>> information. Arguably in our case we don't need a generic XML processing
>>>>> feature in which case perhaps no value for this attribute is needed at all.
>>>>> That doesn't seem to be the case though given the level of interest in this
>>>>> topic.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>  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;
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>  (3) to support generic XML processing functionality not specific to
>>>>> TTML.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>  Then it would seem to be outside the scope of TTML.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>   If we define an alternative to the generic set of {namespace,
>>>> schemaLocation} then we need to explain how this requirement can be met
>>>> otherwise we'll potentially break that generic requirement.
>>>>
>>>
>>>  I don't think so. First, I don't agree there is a generic requirement
>>> that we need to solve. Or I haven't seen a clear explanation of such
>>> requirement or why we need to address it. [Assuming for a moment you are
>>> talking about namespaces, and not talking about the other discussion about
>>> MIME types.]
>>>
>>>
>>>   It seems clear to me from reading the ISO 14496 excerpt that this
>>> generic requirement exists for those who specify values to go in the
>>> @codecs parameter, which is what we're being asked to do to improve TTML
>>> interoperability in an ISO Base Media File Format context. Perhaps someone
>>> closer to that spec can explain if this is in fact the case?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>  It may be outside the scope of TTML but not outside the scope of what
>>>> we've been asked to solve.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>  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.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>  My proposal is to signal a specification not a content profile.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>  I don't know what that means.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>  I defined it in my previous email on this thread at [1], also copied
>>>> in to this email below, at "Thu, May 15, 2014 at 1:28 PM".
>>>>
>>>>  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tt/2014May/0075.html
>>>>
>>>
>>>  I read that email, but it did nothing to specify the problem that
>>> folks are attempting to solve. For example, it does not indicate how
>>> namespaces are related to content profiles.
>>>
>>>
>>>  "The content profile shall itself reference one or more namespaces and
>>> schema locations. " to quote myself.
>>>
>>>     My position is that namespaces are not related to content profiles,
>>> and the former say nothing about the latter (in general). I'm not even sure
>>> there is a minimal mapping to a content profile that can be inferred from a
>>> set of namespace definitions.
>>>
>>>
>>>  Agreed.
>>>
>>>
>>>  So, if someone is suggesting that a list of namespaces serve as a
>>> shorthand for a content profile, I'm just not seeing it.
>>>
>>>
>>>  Agreed.
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>  This meets both the stated requirement in 14496-12 of identifying
>>>>> set of {namespace, schema} and the requirement to direct the choice of
>>>>> processor profile.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>  I don't think so.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>  So you don't think that a proposal that you don't understand does
>>>> something. I don't know what to do with that information!
>>>>
>>>
>>>  If we are going to stop moving around in circles, I need to see a
>>> simple, complete problem statement. I have yet to see one.
>>>
>>>
>>>  Agreed.
>>>
>>>  The closest I have at the moment (synthesised from what others have
>>> written) is:
>>>
>>>    - Define a set of short labels and combinatorial operators to be
>>>    used in the first instance as extensions to the stpp.ttml prefix as used in
>>>    the ISO/IEC 14496-12 @codecs parameter and as a suffix to the
>>>    application/ttml+xml MIME type, and therefore conforming to any
>>>    requirements defined by the specifications for those.
>>>
>>>  I agree with the part up to, but not including "and therefore
>> conforming to...".
>>
>>
>>   Well that's out of our control – in case I wasn't clear, I meant only
>> that anything that we put into the @codecs parameter or MIME type must
>> conform to the specifications for the @codecs parameter and for the MIME
>> type.
>>
>>
>>>    - ISO/IEC 14496-12 requires signalling of the set of {namespace,
>>>    schemaLocation} used by XML documents.
>>>
>>>  I'm not familiar with this spec or why it wants to signal namespaces.
>> I don't know why it wants such a list. In any case, this seems something
>> outside the scope of the TTML spec itself, in the realm of "how does
>> 14496-12 deal with a particular XML format", which seems a general
>> question, and completely unrelated to the discussion of profiles.
>>
>>
>>  Yes it does seem to be a general question re XML – and hopefully
>> following David's email we can remove this as a requirement. Note though
>> that the request is not necessarily for profiles as currently drafted for
>> TTML1 or TTML2 but for something which we would seek to map to/from TTML
>> profiles. In other words profiles may or may not be the solution to
>> whatever the problem is.
>>
>>
>>>    - A receiving system must be able to to make processing choices
>>>    based on the values prior to parsing a TTML document.
>>>
>>>  Must is a bit too strong. Should is better. There is nothing that
>> prevents a receiver from fully decoding TTML before doing anything else,
>> though it may be inefficient.
>>
>>
>>  That's a misreading I think – I didn't say a receiving system must make
>> processing choices, just that the solution must work for those that wish to
>> make processing choices based on the parameter value.
>>
>>  I'd separately be comfortable with a requirement that receiving systems
>> should use the externally represented conformance information to make
>> choices, but I think that's out of our scope.
>>
>>
>>>    - It must be possible to specify receiving systems in terms of the
>>>    parameter values that must minimally be supported.
>>>
>>>  Again, should is better than must. By "parameter values" here are you
>> referring to MIME Content-Type parameters? If so, then I would characterize
>> this as a first-order approximation to answering the question - can I
>> process? This might return true, but during the actual parsing it may turn
>> into false.
>>
>>
>>  Again, it's not in our scope to mandate whether or not receiving
>> systems are specified in terms of the parameter values.
>>
>>  If a parameter describes an 'offer' and the processor accepts that but
>> then stops processing part way through I see that as a broken implicit
>> contract. That kind of behaviour would be hugely unhelpful for users, so I
>> believe we have a MUST requirement that the parameter values can be used to
>> identify processors that are able to process the document being described.
>> The exception would be if the claim for conformance made in the parameter
>> value turns out not to be true upon deep inspection of the document.
>>
>
>  This latter is what I'm referring to. An external parameter value will
> never be able to capture the richness of the existing TTML1 profile
> mechanism, which allows specifying a profile inline, possibly based on an
> existing profile (via 'use' attribute) or defined tabula rasa. As such, an
> external parameter that lists the same profile as the 'use' parameter might
> be construed as being supported, but then only by parsing the profile
> elements in the document discover it is not supported, e.g., if the
> document requires support for a random, unknown feature not required by the
> baseline profile listed in the external parameter.
>
>
>  If processing requires support for a feature not listed in the
> dereferenced external profile parameter then IMHO that parameter has the
> wrong value. Or in my offer/contract terminology it's not a true (fair?)
> offer.
>

the problem is that the external parameter is course grained (can only
refer to a registered, presumably standardized profile), while the internal
profile system is fine grained (can combine/reuse registered profiles, then
add new requirements or reduce the strength of existing requirements); in
other words, they have different levels of expressivity;

this is why i'm treating any external parameter as an approximation and not
as the final word;


>
>
>>>    - It should be possible for those who wish, to be able to validate
>>>    documents against the conformance claims made for them by the value of this
>>>    parameter. (I think this is a weaker requirement than the others because
>>>    this would necessarily require parsing the document so it is reasonable to
>>>    use features internal to the document for validation.)
>>>
>>>  If you are referring to an external parameter on Content-Type, then I
>> would not agree. There is no need to base validation processing on an
>> external parameter that signals content profile. Only a document internal
>> parameter, e.g., ttp:contentProfile, should be used for this purpose for a
>> simple reason: external data is more likely to be wrong that internal data.
>>
>>
>>  Given that 'validation' is a subset of 'processing' then logically if
>> we support 'can process' choice based on the parameter value then we must
>> also support 'can validate' choice on the same basis – they are identical
>> if the kind of processor is a validator.
>>
>
>  I am explicitly treating them as different categories, and that
> validation would (if used) precede 'processing' in the normal sense of
> 'content processor' processing, e.g., presentation or transformation
> processing.
>
>
>  Thanks for clarifying. I'm still struggling to spot the difference
> though: if features from Grandma's-Homecooked-TT aren't known to
> Uncle's-Special-Recipe-TT validator then it won't be validated successfully
> even if it's otherwise conformant.
>

yes; clearly, validator X can't validate a document against a profile it
doesn't know about or doesn't support (for validation processing); i'm just
saying that a validator should not use an external claim about content
conformance to drive validation, but only use (document) internal claims
about content conformance to drive validation; so, in other words, i don't
see any utility in signaling content profile conformance in an external
parameter for the purpose of validation;


>
>
>
>>
>>
>>>    - Content providers should be able to derive acceptable values for
>>>    this parameter given a previously unknown document, but may not need to if
>>>    they know something already about how the document was created.
>>>
>>>  Where is this requirement coming from? What is the use case?
>>
>>
>>  The use case is when there is a known predefined chain of author ->
>> distribute -> process, where each step has external knowledge of the
>> supported content and processor profiles so it's straightforward to add the
>> relevant parameter value. This is usually the case in closed A/V
>> environments such as those separately referenced by John. In this normal
>> state content providers know enough about how the document was created to
>> state the acceptable values. However if a document of unknown provenance
>> needs to be fed into this chain, the content provider should be able to
>> derive acceptable parameters by looking at the document.
>>
>>  I'd accept that this is a very weak requirement and removing it would
>> probably make no meaningful difference.
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>  The content provider may not want the receiving system to infer 'any
>>>>> possible' processor profile from the content profile but instead describe
>>>>> 'must be one of these' processor profiles.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>  Sure, in which case the content author should reference or specify a
>>>> processor profile in the document, in which case signaling a content
>>>> profile has no purpose.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>  That's fine but out of scope of the discussion, which is about what
>>>> is specified externally to the document.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>  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
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *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.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ---------------------
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
Received on Tuesday, 20 May 2014 14:47:15 UTC

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