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

Generate PR #332

Closed
wants to merge 4 commits into from

Conversation

Projects
None yet
3 participants
@palemieux
Copy link
Contributor

commented Feb 9, 2018

Closes #310

@palemieux palemieux added the imsc1.0.1 label Feb 9, 2018

@palemieux palemieux added this to the imsc1.0.1 PR milestone Feb 9, 2018

@palemieux palemieux self-assigned this Feb 9, 2018

@palemieux palemieux requested review from nigelmegitt and tmichel07 Feb 9, 2018

@nigelmegitt
Copy link
Contributor

left a comment

At least one thing definitely needs changing: the incorrect reference to TTML1.

require that implementations are publicly available but encourages them to be so.</p>The Working Group has not identified
features "at risk" for this specification.
<p>The <a href="https://www.w3.org/wiki/TimedText/IMSC1_0_1_Implementation_Report">implementation report</a> documents that
there is at least 2 independent implementations for every feature defined in this specification but not already present in

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
@nigelmegitt

nigelmegitt Feb 9, 2018

Contributor

This should be "there are at least 2"

features "at risk" for this specification.
<p>The <a href="https://www.w3.org/wiki/TimedText/IMSC1_0_1_Implementation_Report">implementation report</a> documents that
there is at least 2 independent implementations for every feature defined in this specification but not already present in
[[TTML1]], thereby satisfying the <a href="https://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/IMSC/ttml-imsc1.0.1/testsuite/">exit criteria test

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
@nigelmegitt

nigelmegitt Feb 9, 2018

Contributor

Surely it's "but not already present in [[IMSC1]]"?

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
@nigelmegitt

nigelmegitt Feb 9, 2018

Contributor

Do we need the words "test suite"?

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
@palemieux

palemieux Feb 9, 2018

Author Contributor

It already says: "exit criteria test suite"

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
@nigelmegitt

nigelmegitt Feb 12, 2018

Contributor

Yes, I was thinking we could remove "test suite", since the important point is that the exit criteria have been satisfied, not that the test suite has been satisfied..


<p>A list of the substantive changes applied since the <a href="https://www.w3.org/TR/2017/WD-ttml-imsc1.0.1-20170322/">initial
Working Draft</a> is found at <a href="substantive-changes-summary.txt">substantive-changes-summary.txt</a>.</p>

<p>This revision of the document is designed such that <a data-lt="processor">Processors</a> and <a data-lt=
"document instance">document instances</a> that conform to the <a href=
"http://www.w3.org/TR/2016/REC-ttml-imsc1-20160421/">Recommendation dated 21 April 2016</a> also conform to this revision. As a

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
@nigelmegitt

nigelmegitt Feb 9, 2018

Contributor

Are we allowed to keep the first sentence in? I think it remains useful.

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
@palemieux

palemieux Feb 9, 2018

Author Contributor

@nigelmegitt This is already stated in the scope. I do not think it makes sense to repeat it in the SOTD, which should really be about the status of the document.

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
@nigelmegitt

nigelmegitt Feb 12, 2018

Contributor

@palemieux I cannot see it in the scope section - at least in the version of the document in this pull request.

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
@palemieux

palemieux Feb 12, 2018

Author Contributor

The scope states: This version of the specification makes editorial corrections and adds two optional features (6.7.5 ittp:activeArea and 6.7.6 itts:fillLineGap) over the Recommendation dated 21 April 2016. Processors and document instances that conform to the Recommendation dated 21 April 2016 also conform to this version of the specification.

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
@nigelmegitt

nigelmegitt Feb 13, 2018

Contributor

Sorry, not sure why I missed that before, thanks for the pointer.

@tmichel07

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

commented Feb 12, 2018

@palemieux

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor Author

commented Feb 12, 2018

@tmichel07 Is a diff wrt to the CR required in addition to or instead of the diff wrt to the previous REC?

@tmichel07

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

commented Feb 12, 2018

@palemieux palemieux deleted the IMSC1.0.1-PR branch Feb 28, 2018

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.