WPP vs. entropy coding sync naming

[ksuehring]

In the SPS we have

	sps_entropy_coding_sync_enabled_flag	u(1)
	if( sps_entropy_coding_sync_enabled_flag )	
		sps_wpp_entry_point_offsets_present_flag	u(1)

Using WPP in the name of sps_wpp_entry_point_offsets_present_flag is a bit weird since WPP is not a term we use anywhere else in the spec.

Renaming should be considered for consistency.

[jeromnhsu]

In (145), it is "sps_entry_point_offsets_present_flag" in use instead of "sps_wpp_entry_point_offsets_present_flag".
Suggest to fix this also.

[ksuehring]

What is (145) ?

[jonathang]

I think he's referring to Equation (145), which is in section 7.4.8.1

[yk]

We also use "Wpp" in a few variables like TableStateIdx0Wpp.

Equation 145 has already been fixed in vC.

The naming of WPP or "entropy_coding_sync" has a long history since HEVC, I personally think it'd probably be better to readers if we use a form of "WPP" instead of "entropy_coding_sync", but people have different opinions herein. Indeed, at least we should use only one form in a consistent manner. But on the other hand, simply replacing all current occurrences of "wpp"/"Wpp" in the text with "ecs"/"Wpp" does not look very good, either. Thus, no action has been taken in this regard at the moment.

More concrete suggestions herein are welcome! Let's see whether we can converge on something. If not, we can just leave this ticket open and let the editor team discuss and decide at a face-to-face post-meeting edition session.

[yk]

This has been resolved in JVET-R2001. The syntax element name has been changed to sps_entry_point_offsets_present_flag, to control the presence of entry points for both tiles and WPP.