ISSUE-307: Conformance language and processor profile rather than content profile.

Profile and conformance terminology

Conformance language and processor profile rather than content profile.

State:
CLOSED
Product:
TTML IMSC 1.0
Raised by:
Nigel Megitt
Opened on:
2014-05-02
Description:
In the context of TTML1, which uses the term profile to define minimal processor features it is confusing in IMSC 1 to use this term to define maximal content features.

This problem will also need to be solved editorially in TTML2, which will support both content and processor profiles. In the meantime the IMSC 1 profiles should be defined in terms of minimal processor features required to support documents containing either text or images.

For example section 4.8 describes features but does not list the required and optional processor features in a similar format to TTML 1 [1]. See for example the relevant section of SDP-US [2].

[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/ttml1/#profiles
[2] http://www.w3.org/TR/ttml10-sdp-us/#Features_in_TTML_1.0_Used

Where new terms with associated semantics and syntax are introduced, for example ttp:progressivelyDecodable, it would be more consistent to use similar language to that in TTML1 such as "If specified, the value of this attribute must adhere to the following syntax:" rather than "The ttp:progressivelyDecodable attribute shall conform to the following syntax:".

Arguably these are two separate issues but there should be a single editorial effort to fix rather than two passes, so lodging them together as one.
Related Actions Items:
No related actions
Related emails:
  1. RE: {minutes} TTWG Meeting 2014-12-04 (from John.Birch@screensystems.tv on 2014-12-04)
  2. Re: {minutes} TTWG Meeting 2014-12-04 (from glenn@skynav.com on 2014-12-04)
  3. {minutes} TTWG Meeting 2014-12-04 (from nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk on 2014-12-04)
  4. {agenda} TTWG Meeting 2014-12-04 (from nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk on 2014-12-03)
  5. {agenda} TTWG Meeting 25/9/2014 (from nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk on 2014-09-24)
  6. Re: {agenda} TTWG Meeting 11/9/2014 (from glenn@skynav.com on 2014-09-10)
  7. {agenda} TTWG Meeting 11/9/2014 (from nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk on 2014-09-10)
  8. {agenda} TTWG Meeting 4/9/2014 (from nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk on 2014-09-03)
  9. {agenda} TTWG Meeting 21/8/2014 (from nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk on 2014-08-20)
  10. {minutes} TTWG Meeting 14/8/2014 (from nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk on 2014-08-14)
  11. Re: New Change Proposal 28 on IMSC 1: Profile refactoring (from nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk on 2014-08-14)
  12. Re: New Change Proposal 28 on IMSC 1: Profile refactoring (from pal@sandflow.com on 2014-08-14)
  13. {agenda} TTWG Meeting 14/8/2014 (from nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk on 2014-08-13)
  14. New Change Proposal 28 on IMSC 1: Profile refactoring (from nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk on 2014-08-08)
  15. Re: {agenda} TTWG Meeting 7/8/2014 (from pal@sandflow.com on 2014-08-06)
  16. {agenda} TTWG Meeting 7/8/2014 (from nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk on 2014-08-06)
  17. {agenda} TTWG Meeting 31/7/2014 (from nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk on 2014-07-30)
  18. RE: {agenda} TTWG Meeting 19/6/2014 (from mdolan@newtbt.com on 2014-06-18)
  19. {agenda} TTWG Meeting 19/6/2014 (from nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk on 2014-06-18)
  20. IMSC feature designators (from nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk on 2014-06-13)
  21. {minutes} TTWG Meeting 15/5/2014 (from nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk on 2014-05-15)
  22. {agenda} TTWG Meeting 15/5/2014 (from nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk on 2014-05-14)
  23. RE: {minutes} TTWG Meeting 8/5/2014 - ISSUE-308 (from John.Birch@screensystems.tv on 2014-05-08)
  24. Re: {minutes} TTWG Meeting 8/5/2014 - ISSUE-308 (from nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk on 2014-05-08)
  25. RE: {minutes} TTWG Meeting 8/5/2014 (from John.Birch@screensystems.tv on 2014-05-08)
  26. {minutes} TTWG Meeting 8/5/2014 (from nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk on 2014-05-08)
  27. Re: {agenda} TTWG Meeting 8/5/2014 (from tmichel@w3.org on 2014-05-08)
  28. {agenda} TTWG Meeting 8/5/2014 (from nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk on 2014-05-07)
  29. ISSUE-307 (Profile and conformance terminology): Conformance language and processor profile rather than content profile. [TTML IMSC 1.0] (from sysbot+tracker@w3.org on 2014-05-02)

Related notes:

> In the meantime the IMSC 1 profiles should be defined in terms of
> minimal processor features required to support documents containing
> either text or images.

Content profile and processor profile are distinct concepts. IMSC 1.0 defines a content profile, which is not forbidden by TTML 1. In fact, Section 3 of SDP-US specifies such a content profile.

An explicit processor profile definition could be added if desired.

> it would be more consistent to use similar language to that in TTML1
> such as "If specified, the value of this attribute must adhere to
> the following syntax:"

Will do.

Pierre-Anthony Lemieux, 8 May 2014, 04:32:52

Add Note in 4.4 re: ttp:frameRate is mandatory if frames are used in time expressions. If frame rate independent document is desired, then frame-based time expression are not used.

Pierre-Anthony Lemieux, 8 May 2014, 14:34:44

Delete previous note.

Pierre-Anthony Lemieux, 8 May 2014, 14:36:03

This is related to Issue-312, Issue-315 and Issue-312 which need to define processor feature designators.

Nigel Megitt, 13 Jun 2014, 16:39:38

See also Change Proposal 28 [1].

[1] https://www.w3.org/wiki/TTML/changeProposal028

Nigel Megitt, 8 Aug 2014, 13:26:59

CP28 was withdrawn on 2014-09-05.

The profile features are now listed and editorial changes have also been made. Marking as Pending Review.

Nigel Megitt, 28 Nov 2014, 15:53:09

Display change log ATOM feed


David Singer <singer@apple.com>, Nigel Megitt <nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk>, Chairs, Thierry Michel <tmichel@w3.org>, Philippe Le H├ęgaret <plh@w3.org>, Atsushi Shimono <atsushi@w3.org>, Staff Contacts
Tracker: documentation, (configuration for this group), originally developed by Dean Jackson, is developed and maintained by the Systems Team <w3t-sys@w3.org>.
$Id: index.php,v 1.326 2018/10/13 17:29:51 vivien Exp $