Re: Formal Object to any new CR of IMSC1

On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 2:51 AM, Nigel Megitt <nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk>
wrote:

> Glenn,
>
> I do not think this is a helpful move.
>
> To recap the GitHub issue discussion:
>
> Since IMSC defines two profiles of TTML the normative fallback defined in
> TTML1 applies in the absence of any other defined behaviour.
>

That won't work, since in the EBU-TT-D case, it would be wrong to apply the
DFXP Transformation Profile.


>
> Furthermore the mechanisms for specifying either of the two profiles are
> coincident with the ttp:profile attribute as defined in TTML 1 and the
> presence  of ebuttm:conformsToStandard with the appropriate value for
> EBU-TT-D also indicates IMSC text profile conformance.
>
> So this objection does not appear to be well formed, in that the assertion
> that no fallback behaviour is defined is false.
>

Clearly by "no fallback" I mean no fallback that yields an IMSC profile. So
in that sense my point stands.


>
> At the very least, IMSC is no worse than TTML1 in this respect, a topic
> which was much discussed at our recent face to face meeting.
>

Without a determination of IMSC profile that yields either text or image
profile, it is not possible to process a document that purports to be an
IMSC conforming document since processor conformance is defined in terms of
knowledge of the applicable profile.


>
> Finally, it is clear that we do not have consensus for an IMSC specific
> algorithm, which by the way would further fragment the processing of
> generic TTML documents since any such processor would have to be configured
> somehow to expect one of either TTML or IMSC to know which rules to use. It
> is clear that IMSC is intended to be a profile of TTML and not a separate
> format in its own right.
>

But that [any such processor would have to be configured somehow to expect
one of either TTML or IMSC to know which rules to use] is manifestly true
already, with or without an IMSC specific algorithm.


>
> I hope these arguments will persuade you to consider other options.
>

>From my perspective, both you and Pierre are not attempting to address my
comment substantively. I have proposed one possible fallback algorithm, I'm
willing to entertain other algorithms as long as they produce one of two
answers: IMSC text or IMSC image profile and do not require pre-parsing the
entire document.

Until that occurs, my objection stands.


>
> Kind regards
>
> Nigel
>
>
>
> > On 11 Dec 2015, at 00:37, Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com> wrote:
> >
> > Unless and until a fallback profile is mandated normatively in IMSC1,
> SKYNAV formally objects to any new CR being published.
>
>
> -----------------------------
> 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.
> -----------------------------
>