How would proponent's alternative Content validation tools operate ?

[andyburras]

CSTF has suggested that designated proponents may provide an equivalent validation tool for codec-specific validation in place of editing the DASH-IF conformance code.
Presumably content will still be validated using the official WAVE tool set to ensure basic conformance, but acceptable codec-specific errors will be ignored. Content will then be validated using the 3rd party tool.

TBD: Designated proponents will need to identify any “acceptable errors/warnings” expected, and some process will be needed to handle these at the reporting stage.

TBD: How will these 3rd party tools be incorporated into the hosted environment, and how will their outputs be added to the reporting process?

TBD: What requirements need to be placed on the 3rd party tools? E.g. what is required for them to be able to be run in the hosted enviornment (such as run on Linux; run from the command-line; output format; etc.)? What licensing requirements are needed (such as rights to distribute freely)?

[andyburras]

FYI: John Simmons has has circulated an email to the CSTF highlighting the respective proposal in the Test Approach document. So we are awaiting comments and feedback.