- From: Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com>
- Date: Wed, 31 May 2017 11:27:56 -0600
- To: Michael Dolan <mike@dolan.tv>
- Cc: "public-tt@w3.org" <public-tt@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CACQ=j+d4A8Db2QnPE7TWXd0VWNz9x=iao38F4AdTY6QKM1pJsQ@mail.gmail.com>
On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 11:03 AM, Michael Dolan <mike@dolan.tv> wrote: > I am more concerned that we are all really in agreement with the principle. > > > > In this example, it could also be changed to “deprecated”. The text is a > bit confusing since it goes on to say what a processor must do if the value > is present: > > > > “If it appears in a profile specification, then it must be interpreted as > if required had been specified.” > > > > which is a bit at odds with it being forbidden and non-conformant. > Not really. Most processors don't check conformance, so we need to define behavior in case an unsupported value appears. We do this throughout the document in statements like, "if a value is not supported, then use the nearest supported value". > > > Mike > > > > *From:* Glenn Adams [mailto:glenn@skynav.com] > *Sent:* Wednesday, May 31, 2017 9:52 AM > *To:* Michael Dolan <mike@dolan.tv> > *Cc:* public-tt@w3.org > > *Subject:* Re: TTML2 backwards compatibility with TTML1 > > > > Regarding the obsoleting of value="use" on ttp:feature and ttp:extension, > we could tie this to whether the document is identified as ttp:version="2" > or greater, deprecating it for version < 2, and obsoleting it for version > >= 2. > > > > On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 10:37 AM, Michael Dolan <mike@dolan.tv> wrote: > > Nigel, > > > > Your acceptance of this principle uses “deprecate” and is conditional on > “a better way to do things”. What I said was: “all conformant TTML1 > instance documents would also be conformant TTML2 instance documents”. > These are not the same. > > > > Based on the definition of “deprecated” (“may but should not appear in a > TTML document instance, and a validating processor should report a warning > if it does appear”) in section 2.3 it is arguably consistent in principle > with what I said, but one would have to inspect the conformance language in > the body for each deprecated item to confirm that the intent of 2.3 was > actually followed. > > > > Section 2.3 also defines “obsoleted” (“must not appear in a TTML document > instance, and a validating processor should report an error if it does”) of > which there is at least one instance (6.1.3 ttp:feature value), thus at > odds with this backwards compatibility principle. > > > > If we all agree with the principle as I have stated it, then perhaps we > should include that in the front matter of the TTML2 spec to remove all > doubt. And, I don’t see how obsoleting any feature is consistent with this. > > > > Can we discuss tomorrow? > > > > Mike > > > > *From:* Nigel Megitt [mailto:nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk] > *Sent:* Wednesday, May 31, 2017 8:59 AM > > > *To:* Michael Dolan <mike@dolan.tv>; public-tt@w3.org > *Subject:* Re: TTML2 backwards compatibility with TTML1 > > > > Thanks Mike, > > > > I think we have discussed and agreed a goal to specify TTML2 so that a > TTML2 processor would process TTML1 documents. For me also it would need a > very strong argument to break this, however deprecating features or syntax > is IMO reasonable if we have a better way to do things. I do not think > there are any other examples than #331 – please do alert us if you find > any. > > > > Nigel > > > > > > *From: *Michael Dolan <mike@dolan.tv> > *Date: *Wednesday, 31 May 2017 at 16:43 > *To: *"public-tt@w3.org" <public-tt@w3.org> > *Subject: *RE: TTML2 backwards compatibility with TTML1 > *Resent-From: *<public-tt@w3.org> > *Resent-Date: *Wednesday, 31 May 2017 at 16:43 > > > > Apologies. (I keep trying not to send email before my first coffee, > but….FYI, I was separately emailing with another colleague about that one > and crossed up the issues.) > > > > I am mostly reacting to the recent discussion on this issue > https://github.com/w3c/ttml2/issues/331 > > > > I missed that it was deprecated in the first place, but why is restoring > this even a debate? I.e. see below about my understanding of a guiding > principle. If we in fact all agree with that, then this issue should just > be accepted and closed without further discussion. > > > > Mike > > > > *From:* Nigel Megitt [mailto:nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk > <nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk>] > *Sent:* Wednesday, May 31, 2017 8:26 AM > *To:* Michael Dolan <mike@dolan.tv>; public-tt@w3.org > *Subject:* Re: TTML2 backwards compatibility with TTML1 > > > > Hi Mike, > > > > The link you provided is an IMSC issue not a TTML2 issue. I'm a bit > confused – perhaps there's another example where a TTML2 constraint is > being introduced that would mean a TTML2 processor would not process a > TTML1 document correctly? > > > > Kind regards, > > > > Nigel > > > > > > *From: *Michael Dolan <mike@dolan.tv> > *Date: *Wednesday, 31 May 2017 at 16:11 > *To: *"public-tt@w3.org" <public-tt@w3.org> > *Subject: *TTML2 backwards compatibility with TTML1 > *Resent-From: *<public-tt@w3.org> > *Resent-Date: *Wednesday, 31 May 2017 at 16:12 > > > > I thought we had a (perhaps implicit and unspoken) requirement that TTML2 > would be backwards compatible with TTML1. That is, all conformant TTML1 > instance documents would also be conformant TTML2 instance documents. > > > > However, we are making decisions that are at odds with the above, e.g. > this week’s change to constrain origin and extent in issue 239 and its PR: > https://github.com/w3c/imsc/pull/240 There are other examples. > > > > I think we need to all be on the same page about the above requirement. > > > > My personal view is that unless something is really broken and > unusable/untestable from TTML1, that this requirement should hold. > > > > Perhaps we can discuss this tomorrow before committing any more changes > that are at odds with it? > > > > Mike > > > > --------------------------- > > Michael A DOLAN > > TBT, Inc; PO Box 190 > > Del Mar, CA 92014 > > +1-858-882-7497 <(858)%20882-7497> > > > > > > ---------------------------- > > 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 Wednesday, 31 May 2017 17:28:51 UTC