Re: DFXP 1.0 Last Call issues list

inline below ([GA])

On Sat, Sep 12, 2009 at 1:06 AM, Silvia Pfeiffer
<silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> Most of my feedback has been addressed.
>
> Here is a short list of things that I think can still be improved.
>
> However, I do not think any of this should stand in the way of moving the
> specification to CR.
>
>
> 1. ttp:clockMode
>
> There is still no example on what a specification that uses gps, utc and
> local values would look like.
>
> I am particularly worreid about the GPS time coordinates, for which the
> format is not defined anywhere - not even in the given reference for GPS -
> only when I do a bit of a search, I find
> http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/usno_head.html , but that format seems not to
> fit with the rough description given in DFXP as:
>
> "The primary difference between GPS time and UTC time is that GPS time is
> not adjusted for leap seconds, while UTC time is adjusted as follows: UTC =
> TAI (*Temp Atomique International*) + *leap seconds accumulated since 1972
> *. TAI is maintained by the *Bureau International des Poids et Mesures*(BIPM) in Sevres, France. The GPS system time is steered to a Master Clock
> (MC) at the US Naval Observatory which is kept within a close but
> unspecified tolerance of TAI."
>
> Maybe it makes sense to remove the gps specification, since it's not
> expected to be substantially different to UTC and since not specifying the
> format properly will mean we won't get interoperable implementations of this
> feature. However, I am not too fussed about leaving it in - it just won't
> get used then.
>

[GA] GPS based time codes are used in US DTV broadcasts for PSIP, which is
the format of transmitting program event (i.e., EPG) related data; the
normative reference to the US Navy Observatory site is sufficient for anyone
to ascertain the differences between UTC and GPS time codes;

since most of the world's aviation and naval industry is satisfied with the
definition of GPS time codes, you should be as well, and I leave it to you
(the reader) to research yourself sufficiently the difference between the
two, which is well captured by the description given in DFXP;

2. Other requested examples as per
> http://www.w3.org/2009/09/dfxp-lc-issues.html
>  and
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tt/2009Jun/0020.html
> would be helpful to add, but are not urgent, since they don't fundamentally
> change the spec.
>

[GA] I agree it may be helpful, but it is strictly informative, so is not
strictly necessary. Furthermore, nobody is volunteering to create these
examples (are you?).


>
> 3. Section ordering
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tt/2009Jun/0028.html
> I am not overly fussed about, though I think the concrete suggestions I
> made would be trivial to execute and would improve the readability.
>
>
[GA] I'm afraid you underestimate the editorial work involved to do this
reordering, and it adds nothing to the technical content of the document.


>
> 4. Use of external metadata
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tt/2009Jun/0034.html
> I may be blind, but I cannot see an example of foreign namespace metadata
> from Dublin Core added in 12.1.1 of http://www.w3.org/TR/ttaf1-dfxp/, see
> ISSUE-137.


[GA] You are looking at the wrong version of DFXP. Look at at the current
editor's update at:

http://dev.w3.org/2008/tt/spec/ttaf1-dfxp.html#metadata-vocabulary-metadata

look specifically at the last example in 12.1.1 "Example Fragment - Foreign
Element Metadata".


>


> Best Regards,
> Silvia.
>
>
>
> On Sat, Sep 12, 2009 at 12:15 PM, Silvia Pfeiffer <
> silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Getting onto it now - hope there is still time.
>> Will give you feedback asap.
>> Thanks,
>> Silvia.
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Sep 12, 2009 at 12:33 AM, Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org> wrote:
>>
>>> ... is at
>>>  http://www.w3.org/2009/09/dfxp-lc-issues.html
>>>
>>> I'm trying to close the loop with Silvia on some of her issues. Besides
>>> that, I believe we'll be all set to move to CR. If you believe I'm
>>> missing something, please let me know.
>>>
>>> Philippe
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>