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

[minutes] Timed Text Working Group Teleconference 20090220

From: Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2009 14:12:16 -0500
To: public-tt@w3.org
Message-Id: <1235157136.29484.107.camel@localhost>
Available at
 http://www.w3.org/2009/02/20-tt-minutes.html

Text version:
                Timed Text Working Group Teleconference

20 Feb 2009

Attendees

   Present
          Franz, Sean, Plh, David, Geoff

   Regrets
          Glenn (at sea), Andrew (vacation), John

   Chair
          Sean&David

   Scribe
          plh

Contents

     * [3]Topics
         1. [4]Test results
         2. [5]Action items review
         3. [6]ISSUE-1
         4. [7]ISSUE-8
         5. [8]ISSUE-14
         6. [9]ISSUE-35
         7. [10]ISSUE-40
         8. [11]ISSUE-41
         9. [12]Next meeting
     * [13]Summary of Action Items
     _________________________________________________________

Test Results

   plh: Content tests: would be good to know if Abode and WGBH are
   planning to support nested div and spans. That's a major set back
   for our tests, especially the timing ones.
   ... NCAM doesn't support xml:space. Nothing to be done there. We
   have enough implementation to move forward for it.
   ... timing tests fail because of nested div, and lack of timing
   model support in Adobe and NCAM. That's a big problem for us.
   ... I don't have Glenn implementation but I expect it'll be the best
   of all, but I'm uncomfortable to use my own HMLT5/JS implementation
   to move the draft forward since I see my implementation as
   experimental/proof of concept, not meant to become a product or
   anything beyond that.

   Sean: Proof of concept is good enough. I'm focusing on the timing
   part for my implementation so I expect good news on that from
   Microsoft, if time allows. Not sure yet to what extend I'll
   implement the styling section. Might still be on target for end of
   the month.

   David: I have Glenn implementation from 18 months. I'll send it to
   plh. Can you have test results for it in 2 weeks?

   plh: I could, even if Timed Text isn't one of my priorities at the
   moment. Testing standalone players require a lot more time since I
   don't have the advantage of the framework.

   David: what should be our focus in the upcoming weeks?

   plh: I think that developers, in particular Adobe, WGBH and
   Microsoft, should look at the test results, starting with the failed
   ones. Check that the test is valid, check that my reported result is
   correct, and report back to the Group whether they plan to pass the
   test or not in the upcoming months. To my surprise, Andrew reported
   that his implementation can be improved when we talked about
   dynamicFlow. We need to understand what is planned to be supported
   by end of this summer at the latest. Our basic profile depends on
   that knowledge since we could keep more features that are not
   supported currently if we get implementations by then. I'll run the
   tests against Glenn's implementation and we could start by
   eliminating any feature that is not supported by Glenn for our basic
   profile (like outline?).

   [Goeff arrives]

   Goeff: further development on the NCAM implementation depends on
   fundings, which we don't have at the moment unfortunately. I'll
   check whether we could fix our span element bug.

   plh: alpha version is good enough for our test report.

   plh: we're doing great on the test coverage. Only missing one is
   dynamicFlow. No need to spend more cycles on that for now. We still
   need to figure out what to do for our transformation profile during
   the CR phase. I still believe that demonstrating transformation
   between existing formats would be great. Not looking for
   round-tripping but at least transformations.

Action items review

   Plh: Didn't do ACTION-17. Priority is getting test results I guess.

   Plh: re ACTION-20. It seems that this action is superceded but not
   sure

   Sean: I believe I took care of section 11 (Animation) tests.

   plh: will check state of ACTION-20 and might close it if we're good.

ISSUE-1

   plh: Didn't we agree to keep dynamicFlow?

   Goeff: yes, but we added rollup behavior.

   ACTION: Glenn to add the rollup value to dynamicFlow

   ISSUE-1 is closed

ISSUE-8

   Sean: I've been using the narration role but we probably to separate
   those two out [...]

   David: can't see having any problem in adding more values to role

   plh: we need an email from Sean listing the new value(s) and their
   description(s), then we can action Glenn.

ISSUE-14

   plh: we declared the handling of xml:lang in the NCAM implementation
   incorrect. I don't think there is anything that should be done in
   the spec at this point.

   Goeff: ok.

   ISSUE-14 is closed

ISSUE-35

   Sean: css 3 changed their alpha value definition
   ... in our spec, it's still a very large number of values
   ... I was trying to constrain that a little to align with others
   ... don't remember how the discussion ended up
   ... Glenn didn't agree to put the proposed type into the xml schema

   plh: Did Glenn agree to change the schema?

   Sean: I don't think so. We need Glenn to discuss this

ISSUE-40

   Sean: you can have style elements as child of region
   ... that's an other way to apply to the region
   ... it isn't referential
   ... but that's a third way of doing it, and it strictly equivalent
   to applying the inline style to the region
   ... the algorithm presented in 8.4 doesn't cover that case. So we
   would need to extend the algorithm
   ... there is a certain of work either way
   ... do we want to keep the style element or not?

   Goeff: I found it useful

   ACTION: Glenn to add support for style element inside region in
   section 8.4

ISSUE-41

   Sean: my preference is to have the default as par for the body element

   Goeff & Plh: +1

   Plh: I'll figure out if it is the case in the spec and will follow
   up with Glenn if not

Next meeting

   plh: we're good on the issues front for now. we're good on tests. Do
   we need a meeting next week since we don't expect a lot of progress
   on test results?

   David & Sean: No meeting next week. We need to concentrate on the
   test results between now and March 6.

   Regrets from Sean on March 6. Regrets from Goeff on March 20.

   Next meeting is on March 6.

   [End of minutes]
Received on Friday, 20 February 2009 19:13:57 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 2 November 2009 22:41:40 GMT