Generate PR #332
Generate PR #332
Conversation
imsc1/spec/ttml-ww-profiles.html
Outdated
| 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 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This should be "there are at least 2"
imsc1/spec/ttml-ww-profiles.html
Outdated
| 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 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Surely it's "but not already present in [[IMSC1]]"?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Do we need the words "test suite"?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It already says: "exit criteria test suite"
There was a problem hiding this comment.
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 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Are we allowed to keep the first sentence in? I think it remains useful.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@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.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@palemieux I cannot see it in the scope section - at least in the version of the document in this pull request.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
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.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Sorry, not sure why I missed that before, thanks for the pointer.
|
Pierre,
we should probably have a diff betwwen CR version and PR version,
showing no substantial changes.
maybe a simple diff from the diff tool is enough
https://services.w3.org/htmldiff?doc1=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2FTR%2F2017%2FCR-ttml-imsc1.0.1-20170713%2F&doc2=http%3A%2F%2Frawgit.com%2Fw3c%2Fimsc%2FIMSC1.0.1-PR%2Fimsc1%2Fspec%2Fttml-ww-profiles.html
Thierry
…On 12/02/2018 17:16, Pierre-Anthony Lemieux wrote:
***@***.**** commented on this pull request.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
In imsc1/spec/ttml-ww-profiles.html
<#332 (comment)>:
>
<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
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./
—
You are receiving this because your review was requested.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#332 (comment)>, or mute
the thread
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AGiYfotp7zSk6UaFs1RlYsiXtqbCOa60ks5tUGPygaJpZM4SANg_>.
|
|
@tmichel07 Is a diff wrt to the CR required in addition to or instead of the diff wrt to the previous REC? |
|
Pierre,
During CR publication we have already give a diff between CR and REC.
We should have a diff between CR and PR to show that there are no
substantives changes since CR. We will need it for Request for
transition to PR.
But you can leave both diff.
Thierry
…On 12/02/2018 17:39, Pierre-Anthony Lemieux wrote:
@tmichel07 <https://github.com/tmichel07> Is a diff wrt to the CR
required /in addition to/ or /instead of/ the diff wrt to the previous REC?
—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#332 (comment)>, or mute
the thread
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AGiYfiuKha2_ps_BxTPcCp6yKXc1uP40ks5tUGlEgaJpZM4SANg_>.
|
Closes #310