Clarify name of IMSC namespaces #304
Conversation
imsc1/spec/ttml-ww-profiles.html
Outdated
| @@ -1120,7 +1120,7 @@ <h3>Profile Signaling</h3> | |||
|
|
|||
| <ul> | |||
| <li>the <a>Document Instance</a> also conforms to [[!EBU-TT-D]], in which case neither the <code>ttp:profile</code> | |||
| attribute nor the <code>ttp:profile</code> element are present, and, instead, the designator of the IMSC1 profile to which | |||
| attribute nor the <code>ttp:profile</code> element are present, and, instead, the designator of the IMSC 1.0 profile to which | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Is this intended to include sub-versions like 1.0.1?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@nigelmegitt No. As discussed before, IMSC 1.0.1 does not trigger a change in the profile designators. The modification above is merely intended to match the name of the profile in the namespaces table.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
But this pull request removes the "1.0" from namespaces table, so why introduce it here? Shouldn't the change be "IMSC1" -> "IMSC"?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@nigelmegitt This PR removes 1.0 from the namespace names used for the IMSC attribute vocabularies (so that the namespaces can be reused in IMSC > 1). The PR retains the 1.0 in the profile designator names (which perhaps should not be listed in the namespace table?), so that new profile designators can be defined in IMSC 1.1.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@palemieux In that case the wording should be "... and, instead, the designators of the IMSC profiles to which ..."
There are no constraints about how many IMSC profiles a document may conform to simultaneously, nor which particular versions of those profiles apply here.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
In that case the wording should be "... and, instead, the designators of the IMSC profiles to which ..."
@nigelmegitt This specification only specifies one applicable profile designator ("IMSC 1.0 Text Profile Designator" or "IMSC 1.0 Image Profile Designator") , so the plural would be misleading. Furthermore, the current text does not prevent other designators from being present.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This specification only specifies one applicable profile designator ("IMSC 1.0 Text Profile Designator" or "IMSC 1.0 Image Profile Designator") , so the plural would be misleading.
@palemieux The IMSC 1.1 text profile will be different from the IMSC 1.0 profile, but a document may conform to both, so it is reasonable to plan ahead here and allow for other IMSC profiles to be signalled if they apply. Perhaps the reason for permitting multiple profile conformance to be declared needs to be clarified in a note though, since I agree it would be confusing if it suggests that a document instance could be conformant to both the text and image profiles.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Perhaps the reason for permitting multiple profile conformance to be declared needs to be clarified in a note though
@nigelmegitt I am not sure what the note would say. Do you have a suggestion? Doesn't EBU-TT-D already notes that ebuttm:conformsToStandard can signal conformance to multiple specifications simultaneously?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@palemieux Yes, EBU-TT-D does permit signalling of conformance to multiple specifications.
Note: In the case that future versions of this specification define additional profile designators and the document instance conforms to more than one profile designator, it is recommended that all of the applicable profile designators are signalled. In general a single document instance does not conform to both the text profile and the image profile.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks a lot @palemieux! Looks good to me and issue #304 is addressed with this PR.
I agree with Nigel, that some clarification is needed regarding the change in the Profile Signaling section. I propose to open a new issue for this question. Other aspects may also be discussed in this new issue (e.g. how to handle the expected EBU-TT-D update (version 1.0.1).
For the time being the change in the profiling section could be reverted or be merged for later discussion. Either way is fine with me.
| "#ebu-tt-d-interop"></a>; or | ||
| <li> | ||
| <p>the <a>Document Instance</a> also conforms to [[!EBU-TT-D]], in which case neither the <code>ttp:profile</code> | ||
| attribute nor the <code>ttp:profile</code> element are present, and, instead, the designator of the IMSC 1.0 profile to |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
There's an instance of "IMSC1 profile" on line 1118 - does that also need changing to "IMSC 1.0 profile"?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Done at ea2637a
imsc1/spec/ttml-ww-profiles.html
Outdated
| "#ebu-tt-d-interop"></a>; or</p> | ||
|
|
||
| <div class='note'> | ||
| <p>Additional <code>ebuttm:conformsToStandard</code> elements can be present beyond the two recommended above, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Editorial point: I think the word "beyond" is unclear here - I'd prefer "additional to" so that it cannot be interpreted as "instead of".
imsc1/spec/ttml-ww-profiles.html
Outdated
| @@ -1115,15 +1115,22 @@ <h4>Maximum number</h4> | |||
| <h3>Profile Signaling</h3> | |||
|
|
|||
| <p>The <code>ttp:profile</code> attribute SHOULD be present on the <code>tt</code> element and equal to the designator of the | |||
| IMSC1 profile to which the <a>Document Instance</a> conforms, and the <code>ttp:profile</code> element SHOULD NOT be present, | |||
| unless:</p> | |||
| IMSC1 1.0 profile to which the <a>Document Instance</a> conforms, and the <code>ttp:profile</code> element SHOULD NOT be | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
IMSC1 1.0 -> IMSC 1.0 ?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Fixed at 4610d2e
Closes #301