Edit ISSUE-319: HRM should be a processor compliance test and allow different levels of complexity for different use cases

Nickname:

Title:

State:

Product:

Raised By:

Description:

Add notes (no markup allowed, URIs get automatically hyperlinked):

Related emails:

  1. {agenda} TTWG Meeting 2014-12-04 (from nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk on 2014-12-03) (from nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk on 2014-12-03)
  2. {agenda} TTWG Meeting 25/9/2014 (from nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk on 2014-09-24) (from nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk on 2014-09-24)
  3. Re: {agenda} TTWG Meeting 11/9/2014 (from glenn@skynav.com on 2014-09-10) (from glenn@skynav.com on 2014-09-10)
  4. {agenda} TTWG Meeting 11/9/2014 (from nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk on 2014-09-10) (from nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk on 2014-09-10)
  5. {agenda} TTWG Meeting 4/9/2014 (from nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk on 2014-09-03) (from nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk on 2014-09-03)
  6. {agenda} TTWG Meeting 21/8/2014 (from nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk on 2014-08-20) (from nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk on 2014-08-20)
  7. Re: New Change Proposal 28 on IMSC 1: Profile refactoring (from nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk on 2014-08-14) (from nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk on 2014-08-14)
  8. Re: New Change Proposal 28 on IMSC 1: Profile refactoring (from pal@sandflow.com on 2014-08-14) (from pal@sandflow.com on 2014-08-14)
  9. {agenda} TTWG Meeting 14/8/2014 (from nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk on 2014-08-13) (from nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk on 2014-08-13)
  10. New Change Proposal 28 on IMSC 1: Profile refactoring (from nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk on 2014-08-08) (from nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk on 2014-08-08)
  11. Re: {agenda} TTWG Meeting 7/8/2014 (from pal@sandflow.com on 2014-08-06) (from pal@sandflow.com on 2014-08-06)
  12. {agenda} TTWG Meeting 7/8/2014 (from nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk on 2014-08-06) (from nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk on 2014-08-06)
  13. {agenda} TTWG Meeting 31/7/2014 (from nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk on 2014-07-30) (from nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk on 2014-07-30)
  14. {minutes} TTWG Meeting 19/6/2014 (from nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk on 2014-06-19) (from nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk on 2014-06-19)
  15. RE: {agenda} TTWG Meeting 19/6/2014 (from mdolan@newtbt.com on 2014-06-18) (from mdolan@newtbt.com on 2014-06-18)
  16. {agenda} TTWG Meeting 19/6/2014 (from nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk on 2014-06-18) (from nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk on 2014-06-18)
  17. IMSC feature designators (from nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk on 2014-06-13) (from nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk on 2014-06-13)
  18. RE: {agenda} TTWG Meeting 12/6/2014 (from mdolan@newtbt.com on 2014-06-12) (from mdolan@newtbt.com on 2014-06-12)
  19. Re: {agenda} TTWG Meeting 12/6/2014 (from pal@sandflow.com on 2014-06-11) (from pal@sandflow.com on 2014-06-11)
  20. Re: {agenda} TTWG Meeting 12/6/2014 (from nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk on 2014-06-11) (from nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk on 2014-06-11)
  21. Re: {agenda} TTWG Meeting 12/6/2014 (from pal@sandflow.com on 2014-06-11) (from pal@sandflow.com on 2014-06-11)
  22. Re: {agenda} TTWG Meeting 12/6/2014 (from nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk on 2014-06-11) (from nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk on 2014-06-11)
  23. {agenda} TTWG Meeting 12/6/2014 (from nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk on 2014-06-11) (from nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk on 2014-06-11)
  24. RE: {agenda} TTWG Meeting 5/6/2014 (from mdolan@newtbt.com on 2014-06-04) (from mdolan@newtbt.com on 2014-06-04)
  25. {agenda} TTWG Meeting 5/6/2014 (from nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk on 2014-06-04) (from nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk on 2014-06-04)
  26. {agenda} TTWG Meeting 29/5/2014 (from nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk on 2014-05-28) (from nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk on 2014-05-28)
  27. Re: ISSUE-319 (HRM should be a processor compliance test): HRM should be a processor compliance test and allow different levels of complexity for different use cases [TTML IMSC 1.0] (from pal@sandflow.com on 2014-05-27) (from pal@sandflow.com on 2014-05-27)
  28. Re: ISSUE-319 (HRM should be a processor compliance test): HRM should be a processor compliance test and allow different levels of complexity for different use cases [TTML IMSC 1.0] (from nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk on 2014-05-27) (from nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk on 2014-05-27)
  29. Re: ISSUE-319 (HRM should be a processor compliance test): HRM should be a processor compliance test and allow different levels of complexity for different use cases [TTML IMSC 1.0] (from pal@sandflow.com on 2014-05-27) (from pal@sandflow.com on 2014-05-27)
  30. Re: ISSUE-319 (HRM should be a processor compliance test): HRM should be a processor compliance test and allow different levels of complexity for different use cases [TTML IMSC 1.0] (from nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk on 2014-05-27) (from nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk on 2014-05-27)
  31. Re: ISSUE-319 (HRM should be a processor compliance test): HRM should be a processor compliance test and allow different levels of complexity for different use cases [TTML IMSC 1.0] (from pal@sandflow.com on 2014-05-27) (from pal@sandflow.com on 2014-05-27)
  32. Re: ISSUE-319 (HRM should be a processor compliance test): HRM should be a processor compliance test and allow different levels of complexity for different use cases [TTML IMSC 1.0] (from nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk on 2014-05-27) (from nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk on 2014-05-27)
  33. Re: ISSUE-319 (HRM should be a processor compliance test): HRM should be a processor compliance test and allow different levels of complexity for different use cases [TTML IMSC 1.0] (from pal@sandflow.com on 2014-05-23) (from pal@sandflow.com on 2014-05-23)
  34. Re: ISSUE-319 (HRM should be a processor compliance test): HRM should be a processor compliance test and allow different levels of complexity for different use cases [TTML IMSC 1.0] (from nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk on 2014-05-23) (from nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk on 2014-05-23)
  35. Re: ISSUE-319 (HRM should be a processor compliance test): HRM should be a processor compliance test and allow different levels of complexity for different use cases [TTML IMSC 1.0] (from pal@sandflow.com on 2014-05-23) (from pal@sandflow.com on 2014-05-23)
  36. RE: ISSUE-319 (HRM should be a processor compliance test): HRM should be a processor compliance test and allow different levels of complexity for different use cases [TTML IMSC 1.0] (from mdolan@newtbt.com on 2014-05-23) (from mdolan@newtbt.com on 2014-05-23)
  37. ISSUE-319 (HRM should be a processor compliance test): HRM should be a processor compliance test and allow different levels of complexity for different use cases [TTML IMSC 1.0] (from sysbot+tracker@w3.org on 2014-05-23) (from sysbot+tracker@w3.org on 2014-05-23)

Related notes:

TTML1 offers a mechanism for defining processor features that are required by compliant processors, so I propose we use it. See also Issue-307.

I'd advocate fine-grained feature designators aggregated with a coarse-grained feature that simply makes reference to the relevant set of fine-grained features.

For example:
#concurrent-regions-4 for processors that can support up to 4 concurrent regions (I know that's not part of the HRM, please don't write in).
#hrm-ipd-max-1s for processors that can process documents authored for rendering with an HRM whose IPD >= 1s.
#hrm-bdraw-max-12-per-s
#hrm-ICpy-max-6
#hrm-Idec-max-1-per-s
#hrm-ndibs-max-a (don't really want to put decimal fractions in designator names, so used a code letter - maybe there's a better way!)
#hrm-GCpy-max-12
#hrm-Ren-non-CJK-a for 1.2
#hrm-Ren-CJK-a for 0.6
#hrm-NBGS-max-1
#hrm-reference-fonts-monospaceSerif
#hrm-reference-fonts-proportionalSansSerif

then grouping:
#hrm-reference-fonts if both #hrm-reference-fonts-monospaceSerif and #hrm-reference-fonts-proportionalSansSerif
#hrm-performance-level-a-text if all of the #hrm-* features listed above for glyph drawing
#hrm-performance-level-a-graphics if all of the #hrm-* features listed above for graphics copying
#hrm-performance-level-a-text-and-graphics if both #hrm-performance-level-a-text and #hrm-performance-level-a-graphics.


Nigel Megitt, 13 Jun 2014, 16:37:56

See also Change Proposal 28 [1].

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

Nigel Megitt, 8 Aug 2014, 13:27:16

CP28 was withdrawn 2014-09-05.

TTML1 doesn't support both content and processor profiles. Since this is a request for a processor profile definition, and is therefore dependent on TTML2, deferring this issue to IMSC 2.

Nigel Megitt, 28 Nov 2014, 15:57:40


David Singer <singer@apple.com>, Nigel Megitt <nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk>, Chairs, Thierry Michel <tmichel@w3.org>, Philippe Le Hégaret <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 $