RE: updated profile registry

Hmm, I wonder if the W3C arrangement with IETF/IANA would allow us to publish a Note for this purpose?  Nigel/Thierry?

 

                Mike

 

From: Glenn Adams [mailto:glenn@skynav.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, September 23, 2015 2:36 PM
To: Michael Dolan <mdolan@newtbt.com>
Cc: TTWG <public-tt@w3.org>
Subject: Re: updated profile registry

 

right, except that would make this dependent on TTML2 publishing schedule, which is why I had suggested at one point to publish an updated media registration (with new parameter) as a standalone document

 

On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 3:30 PM, Michael Dolan <mdolan@newtbt.com <mailto:mdolan@newtbt.com> > wrote:

Yes, exactly my expectation for TTML2.

 

                Mike

 

From: Glenn Adams [mailto:glenn@skynav.com <mailto:glenn@skynav.com> ] 
Sent: Wednesday, September 23, 2015 2:26 PM


To: Michael Dolan <mdolan@newtbt.com <mailto:mdolan@newtbt.com> >
Cc: TTWG <public-tt@w3.org <mailto:public-tt@w3.org> >
Subject: Re: updated profile registry

 

 

 

On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 3:15 PM, Michael Dolan <mdolan@newtbt.com <mailto:mdolan@newtbt.com> > wrote:

Yes, understood – saw that.  I just misremembered that it had been codified there.

 

Perhaps TTML2 doesn’t need the shorthand (tokens or operators) at all.  

 

FYI, we are trying to decouple the registry from both TTM2’s publication schedule and any substantive technical provisions such that it can be approved for publication as a Note by TTWG consensus. This forces an informative suggestion in the registry since the details are not codified elsewhere.

 

If this syntax is to be used with some yet to be defined parameter to be used with a MIME type specification, then it could be defined wherever that parameter is defined. For example, if a 'codec' or 'codecs' parameter is defined for use with application/ttml+xml, then it could be defined in that context.

 

 

Regards,

 

                Mike

 

From: Glenn Adams [mailto:glenn@skynav.com <mailto:glenn@skynav.com> ] 
Sent: Wednesday, September 23, 2015 1:58 PM
To: Michael Dolan <mdolan@newtbt.com <mailto:mdolan@newtbt.com> >
Cc: TTWG <public-tt@w3.org <mailto:public-tt@w3.org> >
Subject: Re: updated profile registry

 

 

 

On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 1:46 PM, Michael Dolan <mdolan@newtbt.com <mailto:mdolan@newtbt.com> > wrote:

I’ve updated the profile registry based on comments received.  Note that the URL has changed:

https://www.w3.org/wiki/TTML/ProfileRegistry 

FYI, a redirect survives at the “…CodecsRegistry” URL.

 

I addressed the comments (I think) as agreed except for one – after further thought I decided to delete the example rather than try to further explain 14496-30 informatively.

 

I thought the combination syntax was in TTML2, but it is not (should be).  So, I left in an informative suggestion for applications using the registry to enable it.

 

TTML2 uses a more verbose, less compact syntax for expressing conjunctive and disjunctive combination, about which see [1], which employs any() and all() functions. We abbreviated these in the proposed syntax in the registry to accommodate the desire for an abridged representation.

 

IMO, we do not need the abridged syntax in TTML2 itself.

 

[1] https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/ttml/raw-file/tip/ttml2/spec/ttml2.html#profile-attribute-processorProfiles

 

 

I vaguely recall a 2nd update email on the EBU URN’s but I can’t find it.  If my memory is in fact better than my email filing, then apologies and please send me the changes again.

 

Regards,

 

                Mike

 

-------------------------

Michael A DOLAN

TBT, Inc. PO Box 190

Del Mar, CA 92014

(m) +1-858-882-7497 <tel:%2B1-858-882-7497>