ISSUE-276: ttp:version vs ttp:profile vs ttp:contentProfile
version-vs-profile
ttp:version vs ttp:profile vs ttp:contentProfile
- State:
- CLOSED
- Product:
- TTML2
- Raised by:
- Glenn Adams
- Opened on:
- 2013-09-05
- Description:
- The semantics of ttp:version (issue-203) need to be clarified (and very specific) in light of ttp:profile and ttp:contentProfile, which already signal conformance to specific normative provisions and can differentiate between TTML1 and TTML2, which declare different profiles.
If ttp:profile is purely informational, shouldn't it be in the ttm: namespace? - Related Actions Items:
- No related actions
- Related emails:
- Re: {minutes} TTWG Meeting 9/10/2014 (from silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com on 2014-10-10)
- {minutes} TTWG Meeting 9/10/2014 (from nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk on 2014-10-09)
- {agenda} TTWG Meeting 9/10/2014 (from nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk on 2014-10-08)
- {agenda} TTWG Meeting 2/10/2014 (from nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk on 2014-10-01)
- ACTION-335: Review issue-276 by 9/10/14 (from sysbot+tracker@w3.org on 2014-09-25)
- {minutes} TTWG Meeting 27/3/2014 (from nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk on 2014-03-27)
- {minutes} TTML Meeting of 24/10/13 (from glenn@skynav.com on 2013-10-24)
- RE: TTML Agenda for 24/10/13 (from mdolan@newtbt.com on 2013-10-23)
- TTML Agenda for 24/10/13 (from nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk on 2013-10-23)
- ISSUE-276 (version-vs-profile): ttp:version vs ttp:profile vs ttp:contentProfile [TTML2] (from sysbot+tracker@w3.org on 2013-09-05)
Related notes:
EBU liaison has requested feature to allow document conformance to (zero to many) profiles to be described using short form aliases to allow references to specifications not wholly defined by schemas or feature designators, i.e. where behaviour is described normatively in documentation.
Nigel Megitt, 23 Oct 2013, 14:02:33[pal]: ttp:version vs ttp:profile vs ttp:contentProfile
24 Oct 2013, 15:31:03Raised by PAL
PAL: P1
Proposal added on behalf of EBU:
* There should be a new element that signals standard conformance.
* This element has a lower bound of 1 and an upper bound of "unbounded".
* The standard is referenced by an URI.
* Conformance is not defined by an explicit profile mechanism but is
only defined by the prose of the referenced standard.
* The URI is an unique identifier and there is no strict requirement
that this resolves to a resources available (e.g. over http).
Example (for easier reading without namespaces):
<metadata>
<conformsToStandard>http://www.w3.org/ns/ttml</conformsToStandard>
<conformsToStandard>http://www.w3.org/ns/ttml/profile/imsc-text</conformsT
oStandard>
<conformsToStandard>urn:ebu:tt-d</conformsToStandard>
<conformsToStandard>http://www.w3.org/ns/ttml/profile/sdp-us</conformsToSt
andard>
</metadata>
The name of the element could be different.
See also note from Nigel in Issue-323.
Glenn Adams, 31 Jul 2014, 14:55:50Addressed in https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/ttml/rev/3927734a69f5
Glenn Adams, 24 Sep 2014, 22:59:43[nigel]: frans has reviewed.
9 Oct 2014, 14:31:29Display change log
