Candidate Recommendation #59
Conversation
Add exit criteria Add at-risk features Add substantive changes summary
|
The Timed Text Working Group just discussed
The full IRC log of that discussion<nigel> Subtopic: CR1 Exit Criteria<nigel> github: https://github.com//pull/59 <nigel> Nigel: Is this still a draft PR? <nigel> Pierre: Yes, to prevent merging, as much as anything else. <nigel> .. The outstanding thing is how to label at-risk features. <nigel> .. I'm not happy with it. <nigel> .. I think we should go back to a simple statement rather than linking to issues. <nigel> .. It's confusing, and doesn't bring us anything because we don't have many features at risk. <nigel> q+ <nigel> .. I propose to remove those links. <nigel> ack nb <nigel> ack n <nigel> Nigel: I'm not sure what the problem is - I'm actually quite happy with it as it stands. <nigel> Pierre: OK, what about you Atsushi? <nigel> Atsushi: I don't have objections <nigel> Pierre: Okay, maybe we should resolve those threads and call it done. <nigel> SUMMARY: Proceed as-is |
spec/imsc-hrm.html
Outdated
| <p>For this specification to exit the CR stage, at least 1 of each, and at least 2 of one, of the following | ||
| independent factors of verifications SHALL be demonstrated:</p> | ||
| <ul> | ||
| <li>content producing implementation</li> | ||
| <li>validating implementation</li> | ||
| </ul> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
In view of the algorithm specified by the specification, if there were two validating implementations and no content producing implementations, I think that should be adequate to exit CR. I don't believe it is symmetrical the other way though: 2 content producing implementations would not be adequate.
| <p>For this specification to exit the CR stage, at least 1 of each, and at least 2 of one, of the following | |
| independent factors of verifications SHALL be demonstrated:</p> | |
| <ul> | |
| <li>content producing implementation</li> | |
| <li>validating implementation</li> | |
| </ul> | |
| <p>For this specification to exit the CR stage, one of the following minimum | |
| combinations of independent factors of verifications SHALL be demonstrated:</p> | |
| <ul> | |
| <li>at least 1 content producing implementation and at least 1 validating implementation OR</li> | |
| <li>at least 2 independent validating implementations</li> | |
| </ul> |
spec/imsc-hrm.html
Outdated
| //, processVersion: "2018" | ||
| //, previousMaturity: "PR" | ||
| //, publishDate: "2021-11-09" | ||
| //, modificationDate: "2020-04-27" | ||
| //, errata: "" | ||
| //, implementationReportURI: "" | ||
| , crEnd: "2023-03-01" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Obviously this date will need to change, suggest publication date + 8 weeks (4 is the process-defined minimum, I believe).
spec/imsc-hrm.html
Outdated
| @@ -242,6 +254,7 @@ <h2>Terms and Definitions</h2> | |||
| <p> | |||
| Unless noted otherwise, this specification applies to an <a>IMSC Document Instance</a>. | |||
| </p> | |||
| <div class="issue" data-number="63"></div> | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I don't think citing this issue in the Conformance section is particularly helpful - I'd remove it from this one location.
|
+1 to go. Just for memo, and I'm not sure whether we will get comment or not, but we may be asked about what kind of verification to be performed by implementation? (e.g. difference from one verification implementation over two sets of data from independent implementations, which we said during discussion) |
|
@palemieux @nigelmegitt could you merge this PR?
|
|
@himorin Merged and tagged |
|
Thank you! |
Preview | Diff