Re: Agenda items re: CR exit criteria

Hi Glenn,

> I think it isn't necessary to discuss this, since we are not relying on
any of the 'S' passes to satisfy the exit criteria.

My concerns would be addressed if this were documented in the
implementation report. Did I miss it?

Best,

-- Pierre


On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 6:13 PM Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com> wrote:

>
>
> On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 5:45 PM, Cyril Concolato <cconcolato@netflix.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Thanks Pierre. Some comments below.
>>
>> On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 4:19 PM Pierre-Anthony Lemieux <pal@sandflow.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Cyril,
>>>
>>> > Do you have precise aspects for which you want careful review?
>>>
>>> Yes:
>>>
>>> - finalize the TTML1 3ED exit criteria tests [1]
>>>
>> The PR seems to be approved by Nigel. There is a comment by Glenn but
>> thee does not seem to be objection. Can we merge it? Or are you expecting
>> something else?
>>
>>
>>> - identify and resolve gaps in the TTML1 3ED implementation report [6]
>>>
>> I see 2 concerns:
>> - The fact that TTPE and ttval columns are empty
>> - the fact that the font size tests are not passing
>> Any other concern? What do you suggest?
>>
>>
>>
>>> - review the definitions of "strictly pass" and "fully pass" at [2] in
>>> the context of the TTML2 exit criteria
>>>
>> What exactly do you mean? Would you prefer having just pass or fail, no
>> intermediate value?
>>
>
> I think it isn't necessary to discuss this, since we are not relying on
> any of the 'S' passes to satisfy the exit criteria.
>
>
>>
>>
>>> - finalize the TTML2 exit criteria tests [ed.: [3] provides a list for
>>> validation tests. I do not see a comparable list for presentation tests,
>>> and two of the presentation tests are at [4] while the others are
>>> presumably at [5].]
>>>
>> I'm not sure I get it. Are you requesting a JSON file for the
>> presentation tests?
>>
>
> I will create a tests.json that can be used for a manifest for the
> presentation tests. All of the presentation tests for TTML2 are in [5],
> there are none in [4].
>
>
>>
>>
>>> - identify and resolve gaps in the TTML2 implementation report
>>>
>> Can you elaborate? Are you concerned about the features that currently
>> don't fulfill the exit criteria? Or is it more than that? Any suggestion?
>>
>
> I believe we only need to discuss https://github.com/w3c/ttml2/issues/990.
> The other remaining non-green features for presentation will be satisfied
> by TTPE before Sep 26.
>
>
>>
>>
>>> - review the IMSC 1.1 implementation report [7]
>>>
>>  It seems pretty straight-forward. Do you foresee any problem with that?
>>
>> Cyril
>>
>>
>>
>>> [1] https://github.com/w3c/ttml1/pull/361
>>> [2] https://github.com/w3c/ttml2-tests/blob/master/README.md
>>> [3] https://github.com/w3c/ttml2-tests/blob/master/validation/tests.json
>>> [4] https://github.com/w3c/imsc-tests/pull/67
>>> [5] https://github.com/w3c/ttml2-tests/tree/master/presentation
>>> [6] https://www.w3.org/wiki/TTML1-3ED_implementation_report
>>> [7] https://www.w3.org/wiki/TimedText/IMSC1_1_Implementation_Report
>>>
>>> Best,
>>>
>>> -- Pierre
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 4:03 PM Cyril Concolato <cconcolato@netflix.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Pierre,
>>>>
>>>> Do you have precise aspects for which you want careful review?
>>>>
>>>> Cyril
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 3:24 PM Pierre-Anthony Lemieux <
>>>> pal@sandflow.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Good morning/evening,
>>>>>
>>>>> Although already included in the agenda, I recommend we carefully
>>>>> review the exit criteria and test suites for the following documents:
>>>>>
>>>>> - TTML1 3ED
>>>>> - TTML 2
>>>>> - IMSC 1.1
>>>>>
>>>>> Time is running short to make course corrections.
>>>>>
>>>>> Best,
>>>>>
>>>>> -- Pierre
>>>>>
>>>>
>