W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-tt@w3.org > March 2015

Re: [IMSC 1] test suite review

From: Pierre-Anthony Lemieux <pal@sandflow.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2015 18:13:27 -0700
Message-ID: <CAF_7JxBnd8q58k6OzgH4=JSVu+b8+tp3tczOYP6kZFahattvNw@mail.gmail.com>
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.


-- 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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:43:46 UTC