Re: Analysis of TTML2 2nd Ed and test suite

On Thu, Feb 6, 2020 at 1:27 PM Cyril Concolato <cconcolato@netflix.com>
wrote:

>
>
> On Thu, Feb 6, 2020 at 11:44 AM Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 6, 2020 at 12:36 PM Cyril Concolato <cconcolato@netflix.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> I had a look at the list of changes in TTML2 2nd Ed (
>>> https://www.w3.org/TR/2020/CR-ttml2-20200128/ttml2-changes.html). We
>>> have 13 syntax changes and 14 semantic only changes, for a total of 27.
>>> Thanks to Glenn's work it's fairly easy to track the associated tests. Out
>>> of these, 14 already have tests (corresponding to 50 new files, thanks to
>>> Glenn again). 4 are marked as 'untestable'. We are left with 9 changes that
>>> need review. Here they are:
>>>
>>> Syntax Changes
>>> * Add #presentation-audio feature designation (w3c/ttml2#1097).
>>> * Add IMSC profile designators (w3c/ttml2#1123).
>>> * Permit audio|image in body content model (w3c/ttml2#1125).
>>>
>>> Semantic (Only) Changes
>>> * Ignore text children of ruby container spans (w3c/ttml2#1077).
>>> * Define shear value to degree mapping (w3c/ttml2#1094).
>>> * Clarify media type parameters (w3c/ttml2#1099).
>>> * Define font selection strategy used by line height algorithm
>>> (w3c/ttml2#1106).
>>> * Remove error condition from scaling procedure (w3c/ttml2#1109).
>>> * Correct #extent-root-version-2 designation (w3c/ttml2#1110).
>>>
>>> Glenn, does this match your analysis?
>>>
>>> We could start populating the Implementation report with the 50 rows for
>>> the 50 test files currently available, to determine the gap in terms of
>>> implementation support.
>>>
>>
>> I presume you are counting the new entries marked "2e" in the JSON files?
>>
> No, I looked at all test PRs associated with the changes and counted all
> new files. See this spreadsheet
> <https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1oo9DtHBBn_t0Nhba4thDASibS0G5fZaJ9HkvlRXdTqo/edit?usp=sharing>
> .
>
>
>> I need to review these to check their mapping/association with the PRs
>> listed in the change document to verify whether (and which)
>>
>>    - "2e" test files are misassociated with a 2e substantive PR
>>
>> I didn't check that specifically.
>
>>
>>    - "2e" test files are missing, i.e., a 2e substantive PR exists but
>>    no "2e" test file is associated with it
>>
>> I think these are the 9 bullet points above.
>
>
>>> Glenn, is there a script to generate these rows from the JSON "since:
>>> "2e"" attribute?
>>>
>>
>> no
>>
> Do you mind if I go ahead and update the IR? or do you prefer to wait
> until we have all the files?
>

go ahead


>
> Cyril
>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Nigel, I noticed that we have 4 open PR on the test repo that we should
>>> probably review and possibly merge or discuss at the next meeting.
>>>
>>> HTH,
>>> Cyril
>>>
>>