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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

Clarify relative profile designator does not use xml:base (#1033). #1054

Merged
merged 4 commits into from Sep 22, 2019
Merged

Clarify relative profile designator does not use xml:base (#1033). #1054

merged 4 commits into from Sep 22, 2019

Conversation

skynavga
Copy link
Collaborator

Closes #1033.

@skynavga skynavga added this to the 2ED-FPWD milestone Mar 25, 2019
@skynavga skynavga self-assigned this Mar 25, 2019
nigelmegitt
nigelmegitt reviewed Mar 26, 2019
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Contributor

@nigelmegitt nigelmegitt left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This is fine as far as it goes, but I've noted in the issue that we need to apply a similar treatment to <fragment-profile-designator> as well, or better yet, remove it since it seems to serve no purpose.

@skynavga
Copy link
Collaborator Author

@nigelmegitt see #1033 (comment)

@nigelmegitt nigelmegitt mentioned this pull request Apr 4, 2019
Closed
@skynavga
Copy link
Collaborator Author

skynavga commented Apr 9, 2019

@nigelmegitt re: #1054 (review), please file a new issue so we can proceed with this PR; by the way, I believe you are wrong about not needing <fragment-profile-designator>, but I prefer to have that conversation outside the scope of this PR;

@nigelmegitt
Copy link
Contributor

I'm really confused by your take on this @skynavga - are you saying that <relative-profile-designator> does not use xml:base, but that <fragment-profile-designator> does use xml:base? If so, how can an implementation resolve this when the same URI can be interpreted equally as either one or the other?

@nigelmegitt nigelmegitt mentioned this pull request Apr 9, 2019
Closed
This was referenced May 8, 2019
Closed
Closed
@nigelmegitt nigelmegitt mentioned this pull request May 22, 2019
Closed
@css-meeting-bot
Copy link
Member

The Timed Text Working Group just discussed Clarify relative profile designator does not use xml:base (#1033). ttml2#1054.

The full IRC log of that discussion <nigel> Topic: Clarify relative profile designator does not use xml:base (#1033). ttml2#1054
<nigel> github: https://github.com//pull/1054
<cyril> nigel: the reason you are working on it is because you think changes are needed
<cyril> glenn: yes, I'll have an update before the next meeting
<cyril> nigel: is it worth sharing your initial thoughts
<cyril> glenn: no
<cyril> glenn: I'll reach out to you separately if I need

palemieux
palemieux reviewed May 28, 2019
View reviewed changes
spec/ttml2.xml Outdated
@@ -6976,8 +6976,13 @@ the TT Profile Namespace, which serves as the base URI with which relative profi
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<note role="clarification">
<p>When absolutizing a &lt;relative-profile-designator&gt;,
<loc href="#content-attribute-xml-base">xml:base</loc> processing does not apply (because the TT Profile Namespace
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

RFC 3986 does not define "absolutizing". I think you might mean "resolving a reference as defined in RFC 3986".

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

The term "absolutize", or a derivative of it, is used 9 times in TTML2. This is probably worth opening a separate editorial issue for, @palemieux .

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@palemieux in the interests of moving this on, would it be okay for you to open a separate issue about the term "absolutize" used in relation to URLs, as I suggested at https://github.com/w3c/ttml2/pull/1054/files#r309211829 ?

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@nigelmegitt Sure. @skynavga or you should open an issue.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Raised #1150. @palemieux please could you re-review on this basis?

palemieux
palemieux requested changes May 29, 2019
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Contributor

@palemieux palemieux left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

See https://github.com/w3c/ttml2/pull/1054/files#r288327425

nigelmegitt
nigelmegitt approved these changes Jul 31, 2019
View reviewed changes
spec/ttml2.xml Outdated
@@ -6976,8 +6976,13 @@ the TT Profile Namespace, which serves as the base URI with which relative profi
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<note role="clarification">
<p>When absolutizing a &lt;relative-profile-designator&gt;,
<loc href="#content-attribute-xml-base">xml:base</loc> processing does not apply (because the TT Profile Namespace
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

The term "absolutize", or a derivative of it, is used 9 times in TTML2. This is probably worth opening a separate editorial issue for, @palemieux .

@skynavga
Copy link
Collaborator Author

skynavga commented Sep 3, 2019

Hold pending merger of #1151.

@skynavga skynavga merged commit e13c0af into master Sep 22, 2019
@skynavga skynavga deleted the issue-1033-relative-profile-designator branch September 22, 2019 02:20
@skynavga skynavga removed their assignment Sep 22, 2019
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@nigelmegitt nigelmegitt nigelmegitt approved these changes

@palemieux palemieux palemieux approved these changes

Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
editorial
Projects
None yet
Milestone
2ED-CR
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Clarify that xml:base processing does not apply to <relative-profile-designator>.
4 participants
@skynavga @nigelmegitt @css-meeting-bot @palemieux