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

TTWG minutes 04/24/09

From: Geoff Freed <geoff_freed@wgbh.org>
Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2009 14:33:06 -0400
To: "public-tt@w3.org" <public-tt@w3.org>
Message-id: <E36081A12A13F146AC32D7724B0E89120767F1AFE8@EXCHCCR.wgbh.org>

Timed-text working group minutes 04/24/2009

Present:
David Kirby (DK, co-chair)
Sean Hayes (SH, co-chair)
Geoff Freed (GF, scribe)
Glenn Adams (GA)
Philippe le Hegaret (PH)
Andrew Kirkpatrick (AK)
Franz de Jong (FJ)


Regrets or absent:
John Birch (JB)


=============================
IMPORTANT NOTES:  

JOHN BIRCH:  see note below regarding input from you.


=============================



Minutes from call:

DK:  Must decide if we can go to last call next month.  

GA:  Still editing proposed replacement of TTP profile and am close to having that ready.  That's straightforward.  Implementing a variant of SH's proposal.  Was hoping to finish that this week, but SH's questions on dynamicFlow may delay it.  Wish that the dF conversation had happened earlier.  Should have given dF a closer look long before this.  Have implemented resolutions to issues I posted today.  Most changes are semantic clarifications, however.  Also, SH mentioned   pixel flow unit.  Have decided that there are some things missing about how this can be implemented.  Might be useful to leave it out of LC draft.  Will follow up to the list on that.  If there are no further serious issues, I can finish editing next week.  Can have a draft we can process for LC submission by next Friday.  May need to do some mechanical stuff to make it adhere to W3C style.  Real issue is whether these changes require thorough review by the group, or if we can put them out to the public without thorough review.  I suspect we'll want to release it without group review.

DK:  What is the timetable for publication?

PH:  Our current Web master is in France, May 1 is a day off in France.  Can't publish then.  If GA can generate an XML file, I can generate HTML to make sure it can pass pub rules.  Would need one or two days for that.

DK:  If we gave final agreement for LC next Friday, that's okay?

PH:  Fine.  If GA gives me the draft by May 4, I can publish no later than May 6.

DK:  GA, is that reasonable?

GA:  Fine.

DK:  If we aim to review the doc and give agreement by next Friday, when would it be available for group review?

GA:  Will try to have it ready as early as I can.  Depends on if anyone raises new problems.  dF discussion may delay things.

DK:  Can you get out an earlier version without final dF changes?  So we can review everything else?

GA:  dF material is the next thing to finish, will have it done this weekend.  Will send draft to list on Monday.  Rest of the week I'll work on the profile mechanism and other open issues (metadata, typos, schema, etc.).

DK:  Okay, good.

GA:  Only other significant changes are profile and section 3.2.  Should be straightforward, however.  Let's say one draft by Monday, then final update by Thursday containing everything I can do up until that time.  Will give 24 hours for review.

DK:  Sounds good to me.  Other thing to decide is about inherit value-- whether to drop or not.

GA:  Have already implemented that change, as well as language to make all properties animateable.

DK:  So that's been dealt with.  dF, then.  SH, any issues we need to discuss?

SH:  Very complicated thing, difficult to discuss on the call.  My biggest problem is understanding how all the things fit together.  We've made substantial progress.  Not trying to scuttle the whole thing.  

DK:  Will you have time next week to review GA's revised text?

SH:  Yes.  

GA:  I proposed earlier that we remove the pixel-flow-unit language from the draft.  There is a problem with figuring out which direction to move pixels-- L --> R, or T --> B?  We did specify transition style, but doesn't apply to flow units.  Also propose to removing transition style mechanism (bar wipe) at this time-- it's under-specified and we don't have time to specify how it works.  Or we could leave it in as an at-risk feature.  Might have to mark entire dF feature as at-risk.  

SH:  I'd go along with that.  Haven't even looked at transition flow.  we do have to satisfy a scroll spec, though.

GA:  We defined three styles  of fill and clear that are general.  The smooth version of that sets pixel-level scrolling at a sub level.  Not suggesting we abandon smooth mode.

SH:  Will figure out how that will work.

GA:  Can we get agreement to remove pixel flow unit and transition style now?

(no objection)

GA:  Will record that these are sufficiently under-specified to leave in the spec and that we remove them.

SH:  Wait for 24 hours to see if anyone not on the call (such as John Birch) objects.

GA:  Okay.  Will post an issue on that in the morning.

DK:  Should we run through issues?  We have closed some of them already.

GA:  Will go through the list and close a number of them this weekend/next week.  By next draft will have resolved everything except #47.  Not sure what to do about that yet.  Can defer for a while.  

PH:  I suggest we keep test suite as is for the moment (style vs styling namespace).

GA:  My only problem here is style vs styling namespace.  I've already changed my implementation to support the variant that is done by CC for Flash (styling), so suggest we change the namespace to styling.  

PH:  You're right.

SH:  I've done the same, so no objection.

GA:  Right now, CC for Flash and Adobe are not going to change, so we should change the spec.

(no objection)

PH:  When we are in last call, the sooner we make the change the sooner implementors will know what to do.

AK:  Which way are we changing it?

GA:  Two issues-- we're changing it to styling.  We're also changing the namespace date to year and month, but we're not doing that right now, but will do it after we go to LC and before PR.

SH:  In the process of redoing all test-suite tests.  If we're going to change these things, would like to do it now.  

PH:  You don't need to change anything at the moment.

SH:  I thought we were going to use an undated namespace.

GA:  Regarding the test suite:  when we go to last call, it would be nice to update it to conform to spec when we go to last call.

PH:  SH is working on that.  So when will the new test suite be ready?

SH:  Might be able to get it out over the weekend.

DK:  Issues list-- is there anything here that needs further discussion?

(GF leaves call; DK takes over minutes.)
Received on Friday, 24 April 2009 18:34:14 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 2 November 2009 22:41:42 GMT