Refactor the HRM #586
Refactor the HRM #586
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This looks good as is, though I think more discussion is warranted, about maintaining the SHALL requirement, and if we should be giving any forward guidance to the industry about how we intend to decouple the specifications in the future.
Also §2. Introduction mentions the HRM:
To assist implementers in developing Processors that can render all Document Instances, § 11. Hypothetical Render Model specifies an hypothetical rendering model that is used to measure and limiting Document Instance complexity.
so that probably needs to change.
|
|
||
| <p class="note">As specified in [[ttml2]], <code>tts:overflow</code> has no effect on the extent of the region, and hence the | ||
| total normalized drawing area S(E<sub>n</sub>) at <a href='#paint-regions'></a>.</p> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Unfortunately this note is not duplicated in IMSC-HRM. Worth opening an issue to add it somewhere, so the information is not lost?
| <section> | ||
| <h4>Hypothetical Render Model</h4> | ||
|
|
||
| <p><a>Document Instance</a> SHALL conform to the Hypothetical Render Model specified at [[!imsc-hrm]].</p> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm interested to know why this is a SHALL: when we discussed it before, and my recollection is based on what is captured in the linked issue, the idea was to make the two Recommendations independent, so that it would be possible to conform to IMSC but not the HRM, for example.
I don't currently have a strong view, and doing it this way is the "minimal change", but I'd like us to consider the pros and cons, perhaps on a TTWG call.
Also, we should add a note here or in the changes section (or both) because although this appears to be a "no net normative change" edit, in fact it removes HRM conformance requirements for the image profile, since we removed image painting metrics from the IMSC-HRM spec.
Closes #582