{minutes} TTWG Meeting 29/5/2014
{agenda} TTWG Meeting 29/5/2014
[ttml2] expressing feature/extension restriction/extension
ISSUE-321: typo - s/ttp:feature/ttp:extension/ in 5th paragraph of 6.1.5 [TTML 1.0 (Editorial)]
ISSUE-320 (Is normative SMPTE 2052 reference okay?): Is normative SMPTE 2052 reference okay? [TTML IMSC 1.0]
- RE: ISSUE-320 (Is normative SMPTE 2052 reference okay?): Is normative SMPTE 2052 reference okay? [TTML IMSC 1.0]
- Re: ISSUE-320 (Is normative SMPTE 2052 reference okay?): Is normative SMPTE 2052 reference okay? [TTML IMSC 1.0]
- Re: ISSUE-320 (Is normative SMPTE 2052 reference okay?): Is normative SMPTE 2052 reference okay? [TTML IMSC 1.0]
ISSUE-319 (HRM should be a processor compliance test): HRM should be a processor compliance test and allow different levels of complexity for different use cases [TTML IMSC 1.0]
- RE: ISSUE-319 (HRM should be a processor compliance test): HRM should be a processor compliance test and allow different levels of complexity for different use cases [TTML IMSC 1.0]
- Re: ISSUE-319 (HRM should be a processor compliance test): HRM should be a processor compliance test and allow different levels of complexity for different use cases [TTML IMSC 1.0]
- Re: ISSUE-319 (HRM should be a processor compliance test): HRM should be a processor compliance test and allow different levels of complexity for different use cases [TTML IMSC 1.0]
- Re: ISSUE-319 (HRM should be a processor compliance test): HRM should be a processor compliance test and allow different levels of complexity for different use cases [TTML IMSC 1.0]
- Re: ISSUE-319 (HRM should be a processor compliance test): HRM should be a processor compliance test and allow different levels of complexity for different use cases [TTML IMSC 1.0]
- Re: ISSUE-319 (HRM should be a processor compliance test): HRM should be a processor compliance test and allow different levels of complexity for different use cases [TTML IMSC 1.0]
- Re: ISSUE-319 (HRM should be a processor compliance test): HRM should be a processor compliance test and allow different levels of complexity for different use cases [TTML IMSC 1.0]
- Re: ISSUE-319 (HRM should be a processor compliance test): HRM should be a processor compliance test and allow different levels of complexity for different use cases [TTML IMSC 1.0]
- Re: ISSUE-319 (HRM should be a processor compliance test): HRM should be a processor compliance test and allow different levels of complexity for different use cases [TTML IMSC 1.0]
- Re: ISSUE-319 (HRM should be a processor compliance test): HRM should be a processor compliance test and allow different levels of complexity for different use cases [TTML IMSC 1.0]
- Re: ISSUE-319 (HRM should be a processor compliance test): HRM should be a processor compliance test and allow different levels of complexity for different use cases [TTML IMSC 1.0]
- Re: ISSUE-319 (HRM should be a processor compliance test): HRM should be a processor compliance test and allow different levels of complexity for different use cases [TTML IMSC 1.0]
- Re: ISSUE-319 (HRM should be a processor compliance test): HRM should be a processor compliance test and allow different levels of complexity for different use cases [TTML IMSC 1.0]
- Re: ISSUE-319 (HRM should be a processor compliance test): HRM should be a processor compliance test and allow different levels of complexity for different use cases [TTML IMSC 1.0]
- Re: ISSUE-319 (HRM should be a processor compliance test): HRM should be a processor compliance test and allow different levels of complexity for different use cases [TTML IMSC 1.0]
Update to ISSUE-305
{minutes} TTWG Meeting 22/5/2014
ISSUE-318 (HRM glyph copy assumes no sub-pixel positioning): Hypothetical Render Model glyph copy assumes no sub-pixel positioning [TTML IMSC 1.0]
- RE: ISSUE-318 (HRM glyph copy assumes no sub-pixel positioning): Hypothetical Render Model glyph copy assumes no sub-pixel positioning [TTML IMSC 1.0]
- Re: ISSUE-318 (HRM glyph copy assumes no sub-pixel positioning): Hypothetical Render Model glyph copy assumes no sub-pixel positioning [TTML IMSC 1.0]
- RE: ISSUE-318 (HRM glyph copy assumes no sub-pixel positioning): Hypothetical Render Model glyph copy assumes no sub-pixel positioning [TTML IMSC 1.0]
- Re: ISSUE-318 (HRM glyph copy assumes no sub-pixel positioning): Hypothetical Render Model glyph copy assumes no sub-pixel positioning [TTML IMSC 1.0]
- Re: ISSUE-318 (HRM glyph copy assumes no sub-pixel positioning): Hypothetical Render Model glyph copy assumes no sub-pixel positioning [TTML IMSC 1.0]
- RE: ISSUE-318 (HRM glyph copy assumes no sub-pixel positioning): Hypothetical Render Model glyph copy assumes no sub-pixel positioning [TTML IMSC 1.0]
- Re: ISSUE-318 (HRM glyph copy assumes no sub-pixel positioning): Hypothetical Render Model glyph copy assumes no sub-pixel positioning [TTML IMSC 1.0]
- Re: ISSUE-318 (HRM glyph copy assumes no sub-pixel positioning): Hypothetical Render Model glyph copy assumes no sub-pixel positioning [TTML IMSC 1.0]
ISSUE-317 (IMSC should not require frame alignment): IMSC should not require frame alignment [TTML IMSC 1.0]
- RE: ISSUE-317 (IMSC should not require frame alignment): IMSC should not require frame alignment [TTML IMSC 1.0]
- Re: ISSUE-317 (IMSC should not require frame alignment): IMSC should not require frame alignment [TTML IMSC 1.0]
- RE: ISSUE-317 (IMSC should not require frame alignment): IMSC should not require frame alignment [TTML IMSC 1.0]
- Re: ISSUE-317 (IMSC should not require frame alignment): IMSC should not require frame alignment [TTML IMSC 1.0]
- RE: ISSUE-317 (IMSC should not require frame alignment): IMSC should not require frame alignment [TTML IMSC 1.0]
- Re: ISSUE-317 (IMSC should not require frame alignment): IMSC should not require frame alignment [TTML IMSC 1.0]
- Re: ISSUE-317 (IMSC should not require frame alignment): IMSC should not require frame alignment [TTML IMSC 1.0]
- RE: ISSUE-317 (IMSC should not require frame alignment): IMSC should not require frame alignment [TTML IMSC 1.0]
- Re: ISSUE-317 (IMSC should not require frame alignment): IMSC should not require frame alignment [TTML IMSC 1.0]
- Re: ISSUE-317 (IMSC should not require frame alignment): IMSC should not require frame alignment [TTML IMSC 1.0]
- Re: ISSUE-317 (IMSC should not require frame alignment): IMSC should not require frame alignment [TTML IMSC 1.0]
- Re: ISSUE-317 (IMSC should not require frame alignment): IMSC should not require frame alignment [TTML IMSC 1.0]
- Re: ISSUE-317 (IMSC should not require frame alignment): IMSC should not require frame alignment [TTML IMSC 1.0]
- Re: ISSUE-317 (IMSC should not require frame alignment): IMSC should not require frame alignment [TTML IMSC 1.0]
- Re: ISSUE-317 (IMSC should not require frame alignment): IMSC should not require frame alignment [TTML IMSC 1.0]
- Re: ISSUE-317 (IMSC should not require frame alignment): IMSC should not require frame alignment [TTML IMSC 1.0]
- Re: ISSUE-317 (IMSC should not require frame alignment): IMSC should not require frame alignment [TTML IMSC 1.0]
- Re: ISSUE-317 (IMSC should not require frame alignment): IMSC should not require frame alignment [TTML IMSC 1.0]
- Re: ISSUE-317 (IMSC should not require frame alignment): IMSC should not require frame alignment [TTML IMSC 1.0]
- Re: ISSUE-317 (IMSC should not require frame alignment): IMSC should not require frame alignment [TTML IMSC 1.0]
- Re: ISSUE-317 (IMSC should not require frame alignment): IMSC should not require frame alignment [TTML IMSC 1.0]
{agenda} TTWG Meeting 22/5/2014
ISSUE-316 (Wording if 5.2):
ISSUE-315 (Maximum number of regions should be a processor constraint): Maximum number of regions should be a processor constraint [TTML IMSC 1.0]
ISSUE-314 (Temporally active is not defined for regions): Temporally active is not defined for regions [TTML 1.0]
ISSUE-313 (Presented Region is informative only): Presented Region section is informative only [TTML IMSC 1.0]
ISSUE-312 (forcedDisplay should be in ttm): forcedDisplay attribute is metadata so should be in ttm not tts namespace [TTML IMSC 1.0]
ISSUE-311 (Note on progressivelyDecodable): Note on progressivelyDecodable is not a sentence [TTML IMSC 1.0]
ISSUE-310 (progressivelyDecodable needs hierarchical definition): Forward reference rule doesn't take into account child elements [TTML IMSC 1.0]
ISSUE-309 (Image profile fails WCAG 1.2): Image profile needs to permit text equivalent [TTML IMSC 1.0]
- Re: ISSUE-309 (Image profile fails WCAG 1.2): Image profile needs to permit text equivalent [TTML IMSC 1.0]
- RE: ISSUE-309 (Image profile fails WCAG 1.2): Image profile needs to permit text equivalent [TTML IMSC 1.0]
- RE: ISSUE-309 (Image profile fails WCAG 1.2): Image profile needs to permit text equivalent [TTML IMSC 1.0]
- RE: ISSUE-309 (Image profile fails WCAG 1.2): Image profile needs to permit text equivalent [TTML IMSC 1.0]
[ttml2] major update to profile related material
Re: Draft TTML Codecs Registry - Issue-305
- Re: Draft TTML Codecs Registry - Issue-305
- Re: Draft TTML Codecs Registry - Issue-305
- Re: Draft TTML Codecs Registry - Issue-305
- Re: Draft TTML Codecs Registry - Issue-305
- Re: Draft TTML Codecs Registry - Issue-305
- RE: Draft TTML Codecs Registry - Issue-305
- Re: Draft TTML Codecs Registry - Issue-305
- RE: Draft TTML Codecs Registry - Issue-305
- Re: Draft TTML Codecs Registry - Issue-305
- RE: Draft TTML Codecs Registry - Issue-305
- Re: Draft TTML Codecs Registry - Issue-305
- RE: Draft TTML Codecs Registry - Issue-305
- Re: Draft TTML Codecs Registry - Issue-305
- RE: Draft TTML Codecs Registry - Issue-305
- Re: Draft TTML Codecs Registry - Issue-305
- RE: Draft TTML Codecs Registry - Issue-305
- RE: Draft TTML Codecs Registry - Issue-305
- Re: Draft TTML Codecs Registry - Issue-305
- Re: Draft TTML Codecs Registry - Issue-305
- Re: Draft TTML Codecs Registry - Issue-305
- Re: Draft TTML Codecs Registry - Issue-305
- Re: Draft TTML Codecs Registry - Issue-305
- RE: Draft TTML Codecs Registry - Issue-305
- Re: Draft TTML Codecs Registry - Issue-305
- Re: Draft TTML Codecs Registry - Issue-305
{minutes} TTWG Meeting 15/5/2014
Draft TTML Codecs Registry
{agenda} TTWG Meeting 15/5/2014
Re: Liaison response - template on MIME type parameter for TimedText - ISSUE 305
Re: {minutes} TTWG Meeting 8/5/2014 - ISSUE-308
{minutes} TTWG Meeting 8/5/2014
{agenda} TTWG Meeting 8/5/2014
Re: Liaison response - template on MIME type parameter for TimedText - ISSUE-305
ISSUE-308 (Related video object reference missing): It is unclear how a document is associated with a related video object [TTML IMSC 1.0]
ISSUE-307 (Profile and conformance terminology): Conformance language and processor profile rather than content profile. [TTML IMSC 1.0]
ISSUE-306 (Fractional time expressions in N.2 media timeBase): Appendix N.2 omits fractional time expressions [TTML 1.0]
Call for Exclusions: TTML Text and Image Profiles for Internet Media Subtitles and Captions 1.0
ISSUE-305 (Profile short names): Register of TTML profiles and short names
{minutes} TTWG Meeting 1/5/2014
Re: Liaison response - template on MIME type parameter for TimedText
- Re: Liaison response - template on MIME type parameter for TimedText
- Re: Liaison response - template on MIME type parameter for TimedText
- Re: Liaison response - template on MIME type parameter for TimedText
- Re: Liaison response - template on MIME type parameter for TimedText
- RE: Liaison response - template on MIME type parameter for TimedText
- Re: Liaison response - template on MIME type parameter for TimedText
- RE: Liaison response - template on MIME type parameter for TimedText
- Re: Liaison response - template on MIME type parameter for TimedText
- RE: Liaison response - template on MIME type parameter for TimedText
- Re: Liaison response - template on MIME type parameter for TimedText
- Re: Liaison response - template on MIME type parameter for TimedText
- RE: Liaison response - template on MIME type parameter for TimedText
- Re: Liaison response - template on MIME type parameter for TimedText
- RE: Liaison response - template on MIME type parameter for TimedText
- Re: Liaison response - template on MIME type parameter for TimedText
- Re: Liaison response - template on MIME type parameter for TimedText
- Re: Liaison response - template on MIME type parameter for TimedText
- Re: Liaison response - template on MIME type parameter for TimedText
- Re: Liaison response - template on MIME type parameter for TimedText
- Re: Liaison response - template on MIME type parameter for TimedText
- Re: Liaison response - template on MIME type parameter for TimedText
- Re: Liaison response - template on MIME type parameter for TimedText
- Re: Liaison response - template on MIME type parameter for TimedText
- Re: Liaison response - template on MIME type parameter for TimedText
- Re: Liaison response - template on MIME type parameter for TimedText
- Re: Liaison response - template on MIME type parameter for TimedText
- Re: Liaison response - template on MIME type parameter for TimedText
- Re: Liaison response - template on MIME type parameter for TimedText
- Re: Liaison response - template on MIME type parameter for TimedText
- Re: Liaison response - template on MIME type parameter for TimedText
- Re: Liaison response - template on MIME type parameter for TimedText
- Re: Liaison response - template on MIME type parameter for TimedText
- Re: Liaison response - template on MIME type parameter for TimedText
- Re: Liaison response - template on MIME type parameter for TimedText
- Re: Liaison response - template on MIME type parameter for TimedText
- Re: Liaison response - template on MIME type parameter for TimedText
- Re: Liaison response - template on MIME type parameter for TimedText
- Re: Liaison response - template on MIME type parameter for TimedText
- Re: Liaison response - template on MIME type parameter for TimedText
- Re: Liaison response - template on MIME type parameter for TimedText
- Re: Liaison response - template on MIME type parameter for TimedText
- Re: Liaison response - template on MIME type parameter for TimedText