W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-tt@w3.org > April 2009

Minutes of TT call on 17th April

From: David Kirby <david.kirby@rd.bbc.co.uk>
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2009 17:43:14 +0100
Message-ID: <49E8B1A2.5000004@rd.bbc.co.uk>
To: Public TTWG List <public-tt@w3.org>
Timed-text working group minutes 17 April 2009

**** ACTIONS prior to next week's call:
1) Review latest Working Draft so we can agree the revisions next week 
(24th April) and move forward to Last Call on 1st May. Note that Glenn 
will provide a further revised version during the week - changes are 
clearly marked.

2) please post to the list if anyone can see any reason to use 'inherit' 
(Issue 54). Otherwise we'll probably drop it.

Sean Hayes (SH, co-chair)
David Kirby (DK)
Glenn Adams (GA)
Philippe le Hegaret (PH)

Regrets or absent:
John Birch
Frans De Jong
Geoff Freed
Andrew Kirkpatrick

Minutes from call
SH: When can we get the next WD out?
PH: We agreed to publish LC on 1st May
SH: what are the blocking issues?
PH: we should avoid leaving substantive issues in the draft otherwise 
another last call will be needed. Dynamic flow is main issue.
SH: could we mark that as 'at risk' in the LC?
PH: yes
DK: wasn't Andrew hoping to provide a basic implementation of that?
SH: he hasn't been able to get work started and we don't have any tests 
for it either
GA: should be able to make tests fairly quickly for a minimal roll-up 
SH: haven't seen the spec for roll-up yet
GA: discussed at a previous telecon; will be line in, line out
SH: MS implementation will do that, so if Glenn's viewer will do it too, 
then we're OK
SH: needs wording for dynamic flow in spec, then we can release document...
GA: ..unless there are any issues with the recent changes that have been 
made to it.
SH: we should review the latest WD this time next week (24th April) and 
agree to move to LC with it.
GA: should be able to get the next revisions into the document during 
next week.

PH: just sent email re issue 17 (default values for styling); we should 
resolve these as it will avoid comments on the LC

GA: Currently working through test suite and several issues have cropped 
up; will post them to the list
SH: What about padding being defined on elements? Seems to be assumed 
that we have this.
GA: propose leaving padding defined on a region only.
SH: send any revisions to test suite to me as I'm currently updating it

GA: during testing, had to look carefully at the document contents to 
see what result is expected. Can we make this easier? Some tests are too 
long - could be 2 seconds instead of 5. Would also help to put an 
indication of timing in the file name.
PH: We could decide what changes are needed then split the task of 
revising them.
GA: overflow - there's a misunderstanding on whether it's in block 
progression or inline direction. Will post issues to list.

SH: Implementation spreadsheet - MS implementation will have everything
DK: what about unicode bidi and text outline? they were marked as not 
SH: now included; will update the test results list

PH: the test suite that's online is not up to date. Also, there are 
early timing tests that are out of date. Should they be removed?
SH: are they redundant?
PH: some are
SH: Ok, will remove those.

PH: Should review some of the issues. Issue 54 - Explicit inheritance - 
should we remove 'inherit'?
GA: The issue is that most properties are inherited anyway so there's 
little or no need to have an explicit 'inherit' value. Having reviewed 
the spec there seem to be only a few cases where we could use inherit
SH: showBackground?
GA: in practice, inherit wouldn't make any difference to that either.
GA: please post to the list of anyone can see any reason to use 
'inherit'. If no reason, then propose we drop it.
PH: CSS would then support it but we wouldn't
DK: but we wouldn't make use of it anyway
PH: agreed - if we really don't use it, then we should remove it

GA: Issue 55 - CSS says these are not inheritable but their prose gives 
an example which seems to suggest they are. Would be easier for us to 
state they are.
SH: I'd support that.
GA: it also makes our set of inheritable properties consistent

SH: when issues are closed, we should expect the owner of the issue to 
check it has been resolved properly
GA: I've been closing issues as each point has been resolved in the 
draft. Run though recently closed issues: 8, 15, 32, 33, 35...
SH: is scientific notation still allowed with that one? We should be 
consistent with other specs
GA: I'll look up further details and report back on that

GA: issue 39 - we'll still allow extent on body but will remove it from 
the tests as it now has no effect; issues 40, 41 & 43;

Action: Sean will review closed action items prior to Last Call.

GA: will implement final action items and get another draft out during 
next week.

[Call ends.]
Received on Friday, 17 April 2009 16:43:48 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 5 October 2017 18:24:04 UTC