Re: Issue-382 review

Hi Nigel,

> 1 and 2 and 4

Looks like improvements to me, which I plan to implement unless I hear
otherwise.

> 2

Looks good to me.

> 3 [...] so if different clock-time expression formats
> are mixed is that in the spirit of the
> recommendation or not?

It is in the spirit (and to the letter) of the recommendation, so no
change needed in my opinion.

Best,

-- Pierre



On Fri, May 1, 2015 at 7:42 AM, Nigel Megitt <nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk> wrote:
> I've reviewed Pierre's change set for resolving Issue-382 and have added
> the following comment, repeated below for ease of access:
>
> [[
> Review notes:
>
> 1. The changeset has highlighted some wording that I didn't previously
> notice:
>
> "ttp:tickRate shall be present on the tt element if the
> #time-offset-with-ticks feature is used in the document."
>
> This is problematic because it isn't clear if it means that the document
> expresses a profile requirement for the #time-offset-with-ticks feature or
> if it means that the document includes any time expressions that require
> the processor to have the feature. I suggest changing it to:
>
> "ttp:tickRate shall be present on the tt element if the document contains
> any time expression that uses the t metric."
>
> 2. Looking at the wording for #frames:
>
> "If the document includes any time expression that uses the frames term,
> the ttp:frameRate attribute shall be present on the tt element."
>
> It doesn't say if the feature may be used or not, and omits the
> possibility of offset times with f metric. It may better be written as:
>
> "MAY be used, with the following additional constraints: If the document
> includes any clock time expression that uses the frames term or any offset
> time expression that uses the f metric, the ttp:frameRate attribute SHALL
> be present on the tt element."
>
>
> The #timing feature has two SHOULD constraints, but neither of them is
> totally clear.
>
> 3. The first is that the same time expression should be used throughout,
> and then it says 'either clock-time or offset-time' - but there are syntax
> choices within either clock-time or offset-time; so if different
> clock-time expression formats are mixed is that in the spirit of the
> recommendation or not? e.g. would <p begin="00:10:00.375"
> end="00:10:02:15"> be okay?
>
> 4. The second is that the new constraint doesn't take into account the
> hierarchy. I'd suggest amended wording such as: "begin and end attributes
> SHOULD be specified on at least one ancestor of every content element that
> contains br elements or text nodes, i.e. a span, a p, a div or a body."
>
> ]]
>
> Some of those comments are beyond the scope of the original issue but were
> highlighted because Pierre tidied the formatting - sorry for catching them
> so late!
>
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Nigel
>
>
>
>
> -----------------------------
> 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 Friday, 1 May 2015 14:58:24 UTC