Re: TTML2/TTML1 Backwards compatibility analysis

Since we already have an umbrella issue in TTML2 to handle incorporating
fixes from TTML1 work, we can just add new sub-items to #358
<https://github.com/w3c/ttml2/issues/358> to handle this (instead of adding
a bunch of new TTML2 issues).

On Fri, Nov 3, 2017 at 3:06 PM, Cyril Concolato <cconcolato@netflix.com>
wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> Just a quick message to let you know that I went through all TTML1 open
> issues [2] to check if they had any impact on the compatibility between
> TTML1 and TTML2. I have added comments to the issues for which I couldn't
> tell if it had an impact or not. Otherwise, I have updated the Google doc
> [1], mostly adding links. I did not find new incompatibilities (pending
> responses in open issues).
>
> I did not add to the Wiki because it's hard to convert it to a wiki
> format. Anyone knows a converter from Gdoc to Wiki?
>
> Cyril
>
> [1] https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Ri7RBBsbIK9SRxA1KsHRejXbYBuL4
> CRRrbmEZRbwZpg/edit#
> [2] https://github.com/w3c/ttml1/issues
>
> On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 4:09 PM, Cyril Concolato <cconcolato@netflix.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Following yesterday's call, I started an analysis of the possible
>> backwards compatibility issues of TTML2 vs TTML1. The results are here:
>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Ri7RBBsbIK9SRxA1KsHRejXb
>> YBuL4CRRrbmEZRbwZpg/edit?usp=sharing
>>
>> This is my analysis, and it might contain errors, oversights. If it is
>> the case, feel free to comment on it.
>>
>> With the current status, it looks to me that there is no real backwards
>> compatibility issue, in the sense that a TTML2 processor would produce a
>> result, when processing a TTML1 document, that would be acceptable with
>> what the TTML1 spec indicates.
>>
>> HTH,
>> Cyril
>>
>>
>>
>