- From: Pierre-Anthony Lemieux <pal@sandflow.com>
- Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2015 18:13:27 -0700
- To: Nigel Megitt <nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk>
- Cc: Public TTWG List <public-tt@w3.org>
Hi Nigel, Thanks for the review. I have added a test at [1] as recommended in row #1 of the report. I propose we discuss the other two test during our next call. Best, -- Pierre [1] https://www.w3.org/wiki/TimedText/IMSC1_Implementation_Report#Tests On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 9:33 AM, Nigel Megitt <nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk> wrote: > All, > > Apologies for only being able to schedule this work so close to the > deadline, but I've at last managed to do a pass through IMSC 1 looking for > normative statements that affect processors, and reconcile this against > the test suite that we have, as discussed in telcons recently. > > I think I've found some normative statements on processor behaviour for > which tests are absent or incomplete. I attach a table showing this > analysis. Just a reminder: the statements or features that need to be > tested are those that are new to IMSC 1 relative to TTML1SE. > > In the case of the requirements from ยง6.6 concerning ttp:frameRate and > ttp:frameRateMultiplier, I am unsure what the test should be because it is > not clear exactly what the spec is requiring the processor to do: is it > saying that the related video object must be advanced at the stated > ttp:frameRate regardless of how it was encoded or decoded or is it saying > that if they do not match already then the processor should display > nothing, for example? > > Kind regards, > > Nigel > > -- > Nigel Megitt > Lead Technologist, BBC Technology > Telephone: +44 (0)3030807996 > BC4 A3 Broadcast Centre, Media Village, 201 Wood Lane, London W12 7TP > >
Received on Thursday, 12 March 2015 01:14:18 UTC