W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-tt@w3.org > October 2014

{minutes} TTWG Meeting 16/10/2014

From: Nigel Megitt <nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2014 15:22:16 +0000
To: W3C Public TTWG <public-tt@w3.org>
Message-ID: <D0659F06.148A4%nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk>
Thanks all for a productive meeting today. Minutes in HTML format can be found at: http://www.w3.org/2014/10/16-tt-minutes.html

There were 2 resolutions, for which the provisional period under our Decision process ends on 30th October:

MIME type subparameter:
RESOLUTION: We will adopt the parameter named processorProfiles

WebVTT short name:
RESOLUTION: At the time we resolve to publish as an FPWD we will use the short name webvtt1

The minutes in text format:


      [1] http://www.w3.org/

                Timed Text Working Group Teleconference

16 Oct 2014

   See also: [2]IRC log

      [2] http://www.w3.org/2014/10/16-tt-irc


          jdsmith, nigel, glenn, pal, Mike, courtney, Frans,
          dsinger, Thierry

          nigel, dsinger (for WebVTT agendum)



     * [3]Topics
         1. [4]This meeting
         2. [5]Santa Clara F2F October (TPAC)
         3. [6]Action items
         4. [7]Issues
         5. [8]Change Proposals
         6. [9]MIME type processor profiles short codes parameter
         7. [10]WebVTT publication
         8. [11]AOB
     * [12]Summary of Action Items

   <trackbot> Date: 16 October 2014

   <scribe> scribeNick: nigel

This meeting

Santa Clara F2F October (TPAC)


     [13] http://www.w3.org/wiki/TimedText/tpac2014

   nigel: goes through agenda as currently drafted.

   glenn: I may need to leave slightly early on the Monday to
   attend another event.

   courtney: Maybe we should reserve a short period for WebVTT
   publication discussions

   nigel: Lists the applicants to be observers.
   ... I intend to accept all the observer applications.
   ... I'll send the emails tomorrow
   ... It turns out that advanced registration is now closed, but
   I believe that registration is available on the day in person.

Action items


   <trackbot> action-338 -- Glenn Adams to Update change proposal
   1 to reflect new approach and move to closed-implemented. --
   due 2014-10-16 -- PENDINGREVIEW


     [14] http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/tracker/actions/338

   glenn: That's done.

   close action-338

   <trackbot> Closed action-338.


   <trackbot> action-339 -- Glenn Adams to Fill in the relevant
   sections of change proposal 12 and move it to
   closed-implemented. -- due 2014-10-16 -- PENDINGREVIEW


     [15] http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/tracker/actions/339

   glenn: That's done.

   close action-339

   <trackbot> Closed action-339.


   <trackbot> action-340 -- Glenn Adams to Update change proposal
   24 and move to closed-implemented -- due 2014-10-16 --


     [16] http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/tracker/actions/340

   glenn: That's done.

   close action-340

   <trackbot> Closed action-340.



   <trackbot> issue-335 -- In order to handle offsets between
   start time in TTML docs and start time in video, allow negative
   times to be used in fragment begin times. -- pending review


     [17] http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/tracker/issues/335

   nigel: We've had quite a bit of debate about this and decided
   to defer this until TPAC

   glenn: I'll prepare a short presentation on this for TPAC.

Change Proposals

   glenn: The only ones that require a significant amount of
   conceptual work and editing is the HTML5 mapping.
   ... The raw content is outlined already, so I hope not to have
   to do much conceptual work there.
   ... Before we go too far in the Rec process though we need some
   implementation support
   ... for the HTML mapping, so I need to do some work on that.
   I've already outlined some
   ... tasks on TTV to allow me to do some experiments with HTML
   mapping, which would be very useful.
   ... I'm also refining the ISD mapping process, which is the
   other area I need to spend
   ... some time on: the semantics and creation procedure. There's
   some material there
   ... already derived from TTML1. Implementation work is
   progressing on that, and it
   ... will help document the algorithm.

   nigel: Is that for a Change Proposal?

   glenn: It may come under Distribution and is also a
   pre-requisite for the HTML5 mapping too.

   nigel: Do we need to liaise with the HTML WG on that?

   glenn: I hope not!
   ... The only reason we might want to is if there's a specific
   issue we may want to
   ... discuss with them. I'm not aware of any. I'm not making any
   normative use of, e.g.
   ... the TextTrackCue APIs. THere's an open issue on HTML5
   regarding the DataCue
   ... interface but that won't impede us here.

   nigel: I was wondering if we were headed towards an HTMLCue.

   glenn: I'm hoping we don't need to add that into TTML2. We have
   some pre-draft specs, for TTML1 and TTML2 APIs
   ... which will probably make reference to those. When we make
   further progress with
   ... those specs that issue will come up more.

   nigel: We don't have those in our charter at the moment.

   glenn: They're generally under TTML2 but not specifically
   marked as Rec Track deliverables.

   jdsmith: TextTrackCue isn't really in a position now to be used
   for TTML now.
   ... Should we have a TTMLCue or something like that?

   glenn: That's the question, it may not be the right time to
   discuss it now.

   jdsmith: Should we track that as an issue in the TTWG? It's not
   in any of our specs now.

   glenn: It's implicitly under the TTML API level 1 and 2 because
   they make use of TextTrackCue
   ... and define a TTMLCue interface. That's part of that
   discussion if we're going to
   ... move forward to Rec on that area.



     [18] https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/ttml/raw-file/default/ttml1-api/Overview.html

   Thierry: Apologies for joining late



     [19] https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/ttml/raw-file/default/ttml2-api/Overview.html

MIME type processor profiles short codes parameter

   nigel: We need to get to a message that we can send to MPEG.

   dsinger: We have that: TTWG will define one or more parameters
   to indicate the dialect or sub-brand of TTML.
   ... We don't need to declare the format for that right now.
   ... For example application/ttml+xml;[subparameter]
   ... and the TTWG is responsible for defining [subparameter]

   mike: We've agreed the syntax too, we just need to agree on the
   name of the parameter.
   ... I'll draft a message to send to MPEG.

   nigel: We've already got time set aside at TPAC to look at the
   registry page. Are there any other actions?

   Mike: We should go ahead and post the response.

   dsinger: Let's write a contribution from me and Mike to submit
   at MPEG rather than a liaison that might take a while to get
   ... On the profile name, there are some proposals: procprofs,
   rprofiles, what else?

   glenn: I vote for codecs

   dsinger: That's used elsewhere for H-264 etc.

   glenn: In this case it's codecs related to TTML.

   dsinger: It's not a formal problem, just one of being

   nigel: We need to conclude that we're not re-using "profile".

   dsinger: I'd rather not redefine it.

   glenn: We shouldn't touch that.

   nigel: Presumably a new parameter should have a reasonably
   short name.

   dsinger: That's why I suggested procprofs.

   nigel: Me too.

   Mike: In TTML2 do we have processor profiles or content
   ... For interpreting the "profiles" parameter.

   glenn: It is a processor profile.

   mike: I would offer that procprofile is more confusing.

   dsinger: What's the equivalent name inside the document?

   glenn: It's ttp:processorProfiles but it doesn't take short

   Mike: profile has effectively been redefined already to be
   processor profile. We need a new label for the new syntax.

   glenn: The original profile parameter in TTML1 referred to a
   single profile only, not multiple.
   ... It was a little vague on whether it meant content or
   processor profile. We've
   ... deprecated it in TTML2 and added processorProfiles and
   contentProfiles to
   ... distinguish those two uses.

   Mike: How about short-profile?

   nigel: How about short-profiles?

   dsinger: Would "profiles" in addition to the original "profile"
   be too confusing.

   nigel: I think so.

   dsinger: I'm back to "procprofs" to allow room for "contprofs"

   glenn: If you're doing that, then "processor-profiles" would be

   dsinger: The length isn't going to be a problem.

   glenn: It's less likely to be confused, and is a semantic

   dsinger: We need to call out that the codes are short names not
   full ones in the documentation.

   RESOLUTION: We will adopt the parameter named processorProfiles
   ... We will host a registry page for this parameter including
   the long name that goes in the TTML2 document and the short
   name for the MIME type and a pointer to the
   ttp:processorProfiles parameter definition

   <inserted> chair: dsinger

WebVTT publication

   dsinger: Thierry pointed out that we haven't published a formal
   FPWD for WebVTT even though it's implemented in various places.
   ... To publish a FPWD, so we can call for wide review. We need
   a resolution from this WG to do that.
   ... nigel and I and Silvia have been working on this. We need a
   resolution to publish a FPWD. I was hoping to have a final
   ... draft of this to look at today. We're asking for formal
   feedback to come back to the TTWG and bugs to go to the CG


     [20] http://dev.w3.org/html5/webvtt/webvtt-staged-snapshot.html

   nigel: This doc has a SOTD saying comments should go to
   public-tt and bugs go to the CG's bugzilla with some
   ... distinguishing information to show that it originated on
   the FPWD.

   pal: So the document proposed to be moved to FPWD needs to be
   offered for review to the WG. Has that been done?

   dsinger: That's what we're doing now. It's the same as the
   editor's draft that has been around for a while, with some
   ... boiler plate changes.

   pal: I'd like some time to review this before we agree to move
   to FPWD.

   dsinger: The FPWD doesn't imply any endorsement, but of course
   you can have some time to review it.

   pal: I recommend this group gives itself at least a week to
   review it.

   dsinger: OK, that's fine.
   ... regrets for next week from me. I'd like to have this
   resolved before TPAC so we can socialise it there.

   nigel: Okay I'll put that on the agenda for next week and we'll
   resolve to publish if there are no objections.
   ... What about the short codes? The proposals are webvtt and

   glenn: I'd suggest going for webvtt1 because there's likely to
   be a webvtt2

   dsinger: If the team can alias webvtt to the latest version
   that's fine too.

   RESOLUTION: At the time we resolve to publish as an FPWD we
   will use the short name webvtt1

   dsinger: My intention for demonstrating wide review to get to
   CR is to contact the W3C groups HTML, CSS etc, and at
   ... least MPEG and so on, and that it will get out in public
   lists etc.

   nigel: You could use the same list as we used for IMSC1 as a
   basis, which was trawled from the Charter and the W3C liaisons

   dsinger: I'll draft that email in anticipation of the

   <Dsinger_> Apologies for running over

   <inserted> chair: nigel


   glenn: Quick announcement: I'm officially representing Skynav
   in this group now.

   nigel: Thanks everyone, for a very productive meeting.
   [adjourns meeting]

Summary of Action Items

   [End of minutes]

    Minutes formatted by David Booth's [21]scribe.perl version
    1.138 ([22]CVS log)
    $Date: 2014-10-16 15:20:13 $

     [21] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm

     [22] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/

Received on Thursday, 16 October 2014 15:22:05 UTC

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