Issue-382 review

I've reviewed Pierre's change set for resolving Issue-382 and have added
the following comment, repeated below for ease of access:

[[
Review notes:

1. The changeset has highlighted some wording that I didn't previously
notice:

"ttp:tickRate shall be present on the tt element if the
#time-offset-with-ticks feature is used in the document."

This is problematic because it isn't clear if it means that the document
expresses a profile requirement for the #time-offset-with-ticks feature or
if it means that the document includes any time expressions that require
the processor to have the feature. I suggest changing it to:

"ttp:tickRate shall be present on the tt element if the document contains
any time expression that uses the t metric."

2. Looking at the wording for #frames:

"If the document includes any time expression that uses the frames term,
the ttp:frameRate attribute shall be present on the tt element."

It doesn't say if the feature may be used or not, and omits the
possibility of offset times with f metric. It may better be written as:

"MAY be used, with the following additional constraints: If the document
includes any clock time expression that uses the frames term or any offset
time expression that uses the f metric, the ttp:frameRate attribute SHALL
be present on the tt element."


The #timing feature has two SHOULD constraints, but neither of them is
totally clear.

3. The first is that the same time expression should be used throughout,
and then it says 'either clock-time or offset-time' - but there are syntax
choices within either clock-time or offset-time; so if different
clock-time expression formats are mixed is that in the spirit of the
recommendation or not? e.g. would <p begin="00:10:00.375"
end="00:10:02:15"> be okay?

4. The second is that the new constraint doesn't take into account the
hierarchy. I'd suggest amended wording such as: "begin and end attributes
SHOULD be specified on at least one ancestor of every content element that
contains br elements or text nodes, i.e. a span, a p, a div or a body."

]]

Some of those comments are beyond the scope of the original issue but were
highlighted because Pierre tidied the formatting - sorry for catching them
so late!


Kind regards,

Nigel




-----------------------------
http://www.bbc.co.uk

This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and
may contain personal views which are not the views of the BBC unless specifically stated.
If you have received it in
error, please delete it from your system.
Do not use, copy or disclose the
information in any way nor act in reliance on it and notify the sender
immediately.
Please note that the BBC monitors e-mails
sent or received.
Further communication will signify your consent to
this.
-----------------------------

Received on Friday, 1 May 2015 14:43:04 UTC