- 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