Issue 0274 xml id editorial improvements

[nigelmegitt]

Addresses #274 by ensuring xml:id is present in the examples, and by defining a shared property "Unique Identifier" with a summary of the formatting requirements, and referencing that from Character Identifier and Script Event Identifier.

---

Preview | Diff

[nigelmegitt]

NB this is editorial

[css-meeting-bot]

The Timed Text Working Group just discussed Issue 0274 xml id editorial improvements w3c/dapt#275, and agreed to the following:

• SUMMARY: @cconcolato to review

The full IRC log of that discussion

<nigel> Subtopic: Issue 0274 xml id editorial improvements #275
<nigel> github: https://github.com//pull/275
<nigel> Nigel: Going back to Ben from Eurovox's feedback (see https://github.com//pull/273#issuecomment-2520849607)
<nigel> .. which included an unprompted comment that the spec is well written and easy to read and implement,
<nigel> .. he did note that he missed xml:id because it was absent from the examples,
<nigel> .. and he wouldn't have noticed that it cannot begin with a digit, say.
<nigel> .. So I opened the issue and this pull request to help others avoid falling into the same trap.
<nigel> .. Would be good to get a review because I think this would be helpful for people.
<nigel> Cyril: I will try to do that.
<nigel> .. What's the procedure, should we merge the editorial changes in before the transition request?
<nigel> Atsushi: The transition request will use the latest version of the draft.
<nigel> Cyril: OK, and we're allowed to do that because there was no substantive change since the CfC?
<nigel> Atsushi: I believe so. Of course the CfC could be resolved in 1 week or so, so we could reissue the decision
<nigel> .. but we don't have substantive change since last time.
<nigel> Nigel: Right, we have no proposals for a substantive change,
<nigel> .. Plus, our working mode for the group is that pull requests _are_ a form of CfC,
<nigel> .. that's why we have the 2 week review period, and do not merge if there are Requests Changes reviews
<nigel> .. outstanding.
<nigel> .. My plan is, if we merge these pull requests before the transition request,
<nigel> .. then I will rebase the transition request branch to include the merged changes,
<nigel> .. and as long as they are only editorial, and not substantive, then I do not think any further
<nigel> .. action or consultation should be needed.
<nigel> .. It would be the same as issuing a CRD (CR Draft) after the CR, but avoiding an admin step.
<nigel> SUMMARY: @cconcolato to review

[cconcolato]

The PR looks good.

The fact that we did not have a need in the example to have xml:id tells me that the mandate to have an xml:id is probably too strict, but that's beyond this PR.