Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Should ittp:activeArea be deprecated? #275

Closed
palemieux opened this issue Nov 6, 2017 · 3 comments

Comments

Projects
None yet
3 participants
@palemieux
Copy link
Contributor

commented Nov 6, 2017

@palemieux palemieux added the blocked label Nov 6, 2017

@palemieux palemieux added this to the imsc1.1 WD2 milestone Nov 6, 2017

@palemieux palemieux added the imsc1.1 label Nov 6, 2017

@css-meeting-bot

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

commented Nov 10, 2017

The Working Group just discussed Should ittp:activeArea be deprecated? #275, and agreed to the following resolutions:

  • RESOLUTION: keep ittp:activeArea in IMSC 1.1, modify TTML2 ttp:activeArea to take position instead of origin, informatively note value mapping from ittp:activeArea to ttp:activeArea
The full IRC log of that discussion <nigel> Topic: Should ittp:activeArea be deprecated? #275
<nigel> github: https://github.com//issues/275
<tmichel> Tool planning specification milestones.
<tmichel> https://w3c.github.io/spec-releases/milestones/
<nigel> nigel: There's already an issue on TTML2 (not sure which one) to modify the syntax
<nigel> .. to take position extent rather than origin extent
<nigel> atai: Similarly to yesterday we have options:
<nigel> .. 1. Deprecate ittp:aspectArea in 1.1 and use ttp:activeArea from TTML2
<nigel> .. 2. Not deprecate ittp:activeArea, leaving as in 1.0.1 and take out ttp:activeArea from TTML2
<nigel> .. 3. Keep both and specify the mapping in IMSC 1.1 to ttp:activeArea
<nigel> pal: Deprecating something that has just been added to IMSC would not make sense.
<nigel> atai: I would support that, for example it has recently been adopted by DVB for implementing
<nigel> .. by hardware manufacturers for TVs - if they see that it is already deprecated that's not
<nigel> .. a good sign.
<nigel> frick: It doesn't encourage trust.
<nigel> glenn: What did ATSC do?
<nigel> pal: I don't know.
<nigel> .. I looked, there's no mention of it.
<nigel> nigel: This could be a good example where we informatively add the mapping to TTML2
<nigel> glenn: Yes
<nigel> pal: I would not have any problem with that.
<nigel> atai: In this case the mapping is 1:1 though
<nigel> pal: It is bizarre
<nigel> .. Same argument as yesterday - pragmatic approach would be to import ittp:activeArea
<nigel> .. into TTML2 as is, so it can be referenced by everybody.
<nigel> .. Having these two present is going to be confusing to implementers and is not doing a
<nigel> .. service to the industry.
<nigel> nigel: Check that the objection to bringing in ittp:activeArea to TTML2 still stands?
<nigel> glenn: Correct.
<nigel> cyril: I need to confirm.
<nigel> atai: Is there any objection to removing ttp:activeArea from TTML2?
<nigel> glenn: Yes I want to keep it in.
<nigel> atai: I made the wide review comment on the TTML2 issue that it should be the same as in
<nigel> .. IMSC 1.0.1 including namespace.
<nigel> glenn: Agree to change TTML2 syntax so that the IMSC 1.0.1 syntax is conformant with it.
<nigel> nigel: The consistent way to do this in TTML2 is to change origin to <position>.
<nigel> pal: Why impose a change on implementors compared to what is there now?
<nigel> nigel: Bigger context - the TTML2 spec is more general and broader. If an implementer has
<nigel> .. generic position processing code for CSS positions, then it's arguably perverse to limit it.
<nigel> nigel: Propose: keep ittp:activeArea in IMSC 1.1, modify TTML2 ttp:activeArea to take position instead of origin, informatively note value mapping from ittp:activeArea to ttp:activeArea
<nigel> atai: I'd add if we do the informative mapping, then note that the TTML2 feature is more
<nigel> .. expressive and therefore slightly different, to limit confusion.
<nigel> RESOLUTION: keep ittp:activeArea in IMSC 1.1, modify TTML2 ttp:activeArea to take position instead of origin, informatively note value mapping from ittp:activeArea to ttp:activeArea
@nigelmegitt

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

commented Nov 24, 2017

Netflix has objected to this Resolution, requesting:

  • Mark ittp:activeArea as deprecated in IMSC 1.1, referencing the definition in IMSC 1.0.1
  • Use ttp:activeArea defined in TTML2
  • In IMSC 1.1 restrict the syntax to two component values aligned with ittp:activeArea

@nigelmegitt nigelmegitt reopened this Nov 24, 2017

@palemieux palemieux added agenda and removed blocked labels Dec 6, 2017

@css-meeting-bot

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

commented Jan 9, 2018

The Working Group just discussed Should ittp:activeArea be deprecated? imsc#275, and agreed to the following resolutions:

  • RESOLUTION: Do not deprecate ittp:aspectRatio
The full IRC log of that discussion <nigel> Topic: Should ittp:activeArea be deprecated? imsc#275
<nigel> github: https://github.com//issues/275
<nigel> RESOLUTION: Do not deprecate ittp:aspectRatio
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
You can’t perform that action at this time.