Edit ISSUE-330: Is Presented Region a synonym for temporally active region?

Nickname:

Title:

State:

Product:

Raised By:

Description:

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

Related emails:

  1. Re: ISSUE-310 (progressivelyDecodable needs hierarchical definition): Forward reference rule doesn't take into account child elements [TTML IMSC 1.0] (from glenn@skynav.com on 2014-08-21) (from glenn@skynav.com on 2014-08-21)
  2. Re: ISSUE-310 (progressivelyDecodable needs hierarchical definition): Forward reference rule doesn't take into account child elements [TTML IMSC 1.0] (from pal@sandflow.com on 2014-08-20) (from pal@sandflow.com on 2014-08-20)
  3. {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)
  4. Re: ISSUE-310 (progressivelyDecodable needs hierarchical definition): Forward reference rule doesn't take into account child elements [TTML IMSC 1.0] (from pal@sandflow.com on 2014-08-15) (from pal@sandflow.com on 2014-08-15)
  5. Re: ISSUE-310 (progressivelyDecodable needs hierarchical definition): Forward reference rule doesn't take into account child elements [TTML IMSC 1.0] (from nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk on 2014-08-15) (from nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk on 2014-08-15)
  6. {minutes} TTWG Meeting 14/8/2014 (from nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk on 2014-08-14) (from nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk on 2014-08-14)
  7. Re: ISSUE-310 (progressivelyDecodable needs hierarchical definition): Forward reference rule doesn't take into account child elements [TTML IMSC 1.0] (from nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk on 2014-08-14) (from nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk on 2014-08-14)
  8. Re: ISSUE-310 (progressivelyDecodable needs hierarchical definition): Forward reference rule doesn't take into account child elements [TTML IMSC 1.0] (from pal@sandflow.com on 2014-08-14) (from pal@sandflow.com on 2014-08-14)
  9. Re: ISSUE-310 (progressivelyDecodable needs hierarchical definition): Forward reference rule doesn't take into account child elements [TTML IMSC 1.0] (from nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk on 2014-08-14) (from nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk on 2014-08-14)
  10. Re: ISSUE-310 (progressivelyDecodable needs hierarchical definition): Forward reference rule doesn't take into account child elements [TTML IMSC 1.0] (from pal@sandflow.com on 2014-08-14) (from pal@sandflow.com on 2014-08-14)
  11. Re: ISSUE-310 (progressivelyDecodable needs hierarchical definition): Forward reference rule doesn't take into account child elements [TTML IMSC 1.0] (from nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk on 2014-08-14) (from nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk on 2014-08-14)
  12. Re: ISSUE-310 (progressivelyDecodable needs hierarchical definition): Forward reference rule doesn't take into account child elements [TTML IMSC 1.0] (from pal@sandflow.com on 2014-08-14) (from pal@sandflow.com on 2014-08-14)
  13. Re: ISSUE-310 (progressivelyDecodable needs hierarchical definition): Forward reference rule doesn't take into account child elements [TTML IMSC 1.0] (from nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk on 2014-08-14) (from nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk on 2014-08-14)
  14. Re: ISSUE-310 (progressivelyDecodable needs hierarchical definition): Forward reference rule doesn't take into account child elements [TTML IMSC 1.0] (from pal@sandflow.com on 2014-08-14) (from pal@sandflow.com on 2014-08-14)
  15. Re: ISSUE-310 (progressivelyDecodable needs hierarchical definition): Forward reference rule doesn't take into account child elements [TTML IMSC 1.0] (from nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk on 2014-08-14) (from nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk on 2014-08-14)
  16. Re: ISSUE-310 (progressivelyDecodable needs hierarchical definition): Forward reference rule doesn't take into account child elements [TTML IMSC 1.0] (from pal@sandflow.com on 2014-08-13) (from pal@sandflow.com on 2014-08-13)
  17. {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)
  18. Re: ISSUE-310 (progressivelyDecodable needs hierarchical definition): Forward reference rule doesn't take into account child elements [TTML IMSC 1.0] (from nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk on 2014-08-13) (from nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk on 2014-08-13)
  19. Re: ISSUE-310 (progressivelyDecodable needs hierarchical definition): Forward reference rule doesn't take into account child elements [TTML IMSC 1.0] (from glenn@skynav.com on 2014-08-13) (from glenn@skynav.com on 2014-08-13)
  20. Re: ISSUE-310 (progressivelyDecodable needs hierarchical definition): Forward reference rule doesn't take into account child elements [TTML IMSC 1.0] (from nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk on 2014-08-13) (from nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk on 2014-08-13)
  21. Re: ISSUE-310 (progressivelyDecodable needs hierarchical definition): Forward reference rule doesn't take into account child elements [TTML IMSC 1.0] (from pal@sandflow.com on 2014-08-13) (from pal@sandflow.com on 2014-08-13)
  22. Re: ISSUE-310 (progressivelyDecodable needs hierarchical definition): Forward reference rule doesn't take into account child elements [TTML IMSC 1.0] (from nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk on 2014-08-13) (from nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk on 2014-08-13)
  23. Re: ISSUE-310 (progressivelyDecodable needs hierarchical definition): Forward reference rule doesn't take into account child elements [TTML IMSC 1.0] (from pal@sandflow.com on 2014-08-13) (from pal@sandflow.com on 2014-08-13)
  24. Re: ISSUE-330 (Is Presented Region a synonym for temporally active region?): Is Presented Region a synonym for temporally active region? [TTML IMSC 1.0] (from nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk on 2014-08-13) (from nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk on 2014-08-13)
  25. Re: ISSUE-330 (Is Presented Region a synonym for temporally active region?): Is Presented Region a synonym for temporally active region? [TTML IMSC 1.0] (from nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk on 2014-08-13) (from nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk on 2014-08-13)
  26. Re: ISSUE-330 (Is Presented Region a synonym for temporally active region?): Is Presented Region a synonym for temporally active region? [TTML IMSC 1.0] (from pal@sandflow.com on 2014-08-12) (from pal@sandflow.com on 2014-08-12)
  27. Re: {agenda} TTWG Meeting 7/8/2014 (from pal@sandflow.com on 2014-08-06) (from pal@sandflow.com on 2014-08-06)
  28. {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)
  29. {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)
  30. Re: ISSUE-330 (Is Presented Region a synonym for temporally active region?): Is Presented Region a synonym for temporally active region? [TTML IMSC 1.0] (from nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk on 2014-07-28) (from nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk on 2014-07-28)
  31. Re: ISSUE-330 (Is Presented Region a synonym for temporally active region?): Is Presented Region a synonym for temporally active region? [TTML IMSC 1.0] (from nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk on 2014-07-28) (from nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk on 2014-07-28)
  32. Re: ISSUE-330 (Is Presented Region a synonym for temporally active region?): Is Presented Region a synonym for temporally active region? [TTML IMSC 1.0] (from glenn@skynav.com on 2014-07-28) (from glenn@skynav.com on 2014-07-28)
  33. ISSUE-330 (Is Presented Region a synonym for temporally active region?): Is Presented Region a synonym for temporally active region? [TTML IMSC 1.0] (from sysbot+tracker@w3.org on 2014-07-28) (from sysbot+tracker@w3.org on 2014-07-28)

Related notes:

The phrase "temporally active region" is not synonymous with "presented region", since a temporally active region that contains no content will not produce any rendering unless showBackground is "always". See further details in Issue-314 comments.

Glenn Adams, 28 Jul 2014, 15:19:14

In that case it would make sense to define 'presented region' in terms of a 'temporally active region' that either contains visible content with opacity >0 or has showBackground="always" and a backgroundColour with opacity >0.

Nigel Megitt, 28 Jul 2014, 15:54:08

Addressed at https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/ttml/rev/ceaa219bfbcc

Pierre-Anthony Lemieux, 12 Aug 2014, 14:51:38

The updated text uses phrases such as ‘earlier/later in the document’ - this does not address my original concern, that the test for earlier and later is not precisely enough defined. Do you mean to compare the byte locations of the opening tag of the elements in the flattened document structure, for example?

It is also unclear in the new wording (list item 2) how an ISD “maps” to a content element. An ISD is typically constructed from multiple elements simultaneously. There seems to be an assumption that an ISD can only relate to a single p, which is such a significant constraint that I wonder if it was intended.

Take this example:

<p id="p1" begin="00:01:00" end="00:02:00">
[some stuff]
</p>
<p id="p2" begin="00:01:30" end="00:01:45">
[some other stuff]
</p>

We have here the following ISDs:
1. 00:01:00 containing p1
2. 00:01:30 containing p1 and p2
3. 00:01.45 containing p1
4. 00:02:00 containing nothing

Is this progressively decodable? Did the 3rd ISD above 'map' to p2? It doesn't itself contain p2: it simply has its timing derived from p2.

Nigel Megitt, 13 Aug 2014, 09:34:50

Apologies the previous note should have been on Issue-310.

Nigel Megitt, 13 Aug 2014, 09:37:02

Review comment: this edit resolves the issue, for me.

Nigel Megitt, 13 Aug 2014, 09:41:12


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 $