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

Minutes of TT telecon 16 Jan 2009

From: David Kirby <david.kirby@rd.bbc.co.uk>
Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2009 17:12:07 +0000
Message-ID: <4970BFE7.6020300@rd.bbc.co.uk>
To: public-tt@w3.org

Timed-text working group minutes 16 January 2009


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

Regrets:
John Birch
Frans De Jong


Minutes from call
PH: Awaiting implementations from AK and SH; this is starting to get in 
the way of progress.
AK: sorting out our implementation has been delayed; hope to have it 
ready today.
SH: should have the Microsoft implementation ready by end of Feb.

GF: Some questions arising - bidi-override and direction - are these 
both needed?
GA: Yes, bidi-override and direction are independent parameters and both 
are required for Hebrew and Arabic text. To be consistent with W3C 
translation of Unicode to XML we need both parameters.

GF: For consistency with CEA 708, in earlier discussion said we need 
some features...
AK: for example, borders on regions...
GF: I'm undecided as to whether we really need to hold up the process in 
order to include these in DFXP.
AK: I'm wondering about that too - does any manufacturer use this?
SH: this goes back to the discussion as to whether we should be able to 
round-trip 708. It's not definitely needed in DFXP, but we should check 
that the lack of some of these features from 708 isn't going to be a 
problem.
GF: region transparancy/fading falls into this category
GA: for fading, if it really is needed, we have a way of doing it now 
[using set??] so nothing needs to be added.
GF: Unsure about demand for some of these 708 features in US; possibly 
not really needed at the moment.

GA: Looking at Q4 of issues questionaire - metadata already seems to be 
supported on regions.
SH: metadata data attributes allowed there but not elements
GA: OK

DK: Re Q6, some of the test files appear to use ttm:descr rather than 
ttm:desc - is that correct?
SH: Philippe fixed those earlier; they should be ttm:desc.
DK: Looking at timing tests just emailed by Sean, at least one of them 
seems to use ttm:descr.
SH: May have sent earlier versions to list; will check.

DK: Re ttm:actor - this isn't included in tests yet as unclear on 
exactly how it is to be used.
GA: ttm:actor links a real agent, e.g. Sean Connery, to a fictional one, 
e.g. "James Bond". Will send example to the list for discussion.
DK: It seems to be conveying details that could be carried as an 
attribute of ttm:agent and this may be an easier way to do it. Will 
consider this more once example is available via list.

SH: can Philippe add a text box to the questionaire, where it says 
"Needs discussion"
GA: suggest this be a separate field to allow comments whatever the answer.
[DK - request forwarded to PH via IRC just after the call - and done by 
Philippe before I managed to get these minutes out!]

GA: report progress on editing of revised Rec - changes to tts:extent 
finished, work on default region is underway. Will also add 
"requiredFeatures" and those related elements, as previously discussed, 
as editor's notes for consideration. Updated spec should be available 
sometime next week.

GA: Note that Q19 (throughLine or lineThrough) has already been fixed as 
it was really a typo.

[Call ends]
Received on Friday, 16 January 2009 17:12:39 GMT

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