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
Clarify that the concrete encoding uses XML 1.0 #438
Conversation
imsc1/spec/ttml-ww-profiles.html
Outdated
@@ -2052,7 +2051,8 @@ <h2>Common Provisions</h2> | |||
<section> | |||
<h3>Document Encoding</h3> | |||
|
|||
<p>A <a>Document Instance</a> SHALL use UTF-8 character encoding as specified in [[!UNICODE]].</p> | |||
<p>A <a>Document Instance</a> SHALL be concretely encoded as a well-formed XML 1.0 [[!XML 1.0]] document using the UTF-8 | |||
character encoding as specified in [[!UNICODE]].</p> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Apologies I didn't put this in the issue, but as per TTML2 appendix P.1 I think we should also add an "and SHALL not use entity expansion" statement here.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think this is fair given how recently it has been raised. It occurs to me that validation processors that are based on XML bindings etc may not have API access to the unexpanded entities, so it may not be straightforward to implement.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I just noticed the [[!XML 1.0]]
references aren't being processed correctly by respec. Not sure if they're well formed.
Fixes review comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Having fixed the XML 1.0 references, this now looks good to me, as per previous review comment.
Closes #431