- From: Cyril Concolato <cyril.concolato@telecom-paristech.fr>
- Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2015 09:53:53 +0200
- To: public-tt@w3.org
Le 07/10/2015 17:48, Glenn Adams a écrit : > Document Interchange Context abstracts the delivery context, allowing, > for example, the envelope or container to specify a profile without > doing so in the document itself. Though I would always prefer the > document to do so. I agree, it is very fragile to specify the profile outside of the document because the information might get lost in a workflow, or worse become invalid. > > As for finding what processor profile applies to a document, it is > rather more complicated than simply looking for a ttp:profile > attribute, even in TTML1. That's what I fear. > This is because it is possible to declare a profile within the > document instead of by reference, i.e., by using the ttp:profile element. Well, I think this is a bit over-engineered. You can't build a video stream saying I use this feature from this profile and that feature from that other profile. You indicate the smallest profile that supports all features. > > - the ttp:profile element does not have a designator > attribute. > > What would a designator attribute be for? Features have > designators, not > profiles. There is a use attribute though. > > According to the registry, profiles have designators. According to > 5.2 in TTML1, profiles have designator. It seems very hard to > determine if a document can be played by a player by inspecting > all features to see if they match existing profiles. > > > Not really. This has been implemented multiple times without > difficulty. The process works as follows: > > * determine the effective processor profile EPP that applies to > document D > * for each feature F in EPP > o if F is required, but not supported, then abort processing > unless abort is overridden > * for each extension E in EPP > o if E is required, but not supported, then abort processing > unless abort is overridden > > There is nothing difficult about this process. Difficult might not be appropriate word. Not affordable might be better. I want a *simple* way to find the profile. Checking each feature, each extension is too much for me. I'm considering applying the following algorithm, to find the profile identifier(s) to produce the codecs: - if the document is TTML1, - if the ttp:profile attribute is present, use it - if ebutt:conformsToStandard exist, use them and combine them - otherwise return a full profile (which one?) - if the document is TTML2, - if the ttp:processProfiles is present, use it - if ttp:profile elements with designators are present, use them and combine them, - otherwise return a full profile Would that work? Cyril -- Cyril Concolato Multimedia Group / Telecom ParisTech http://concolato.wp.mines-telecom.fr/ @cconcolato
Received on Thursday, 8 October 2015 07:54:15 UTC