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

{minutes} TTWG Meeting 23/10/2014

From: Nigel Megitt <nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2014 15:10:08 +0000
To: Timed Text Working Group <public-tt@w3.org>
Message-ID: <D06ED850.15185%nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk>
Thanks all for attending this afternoon's TTWG meeting. Minutes in HTML at: http://www.w3.org/2014/10/23-tt-minutes.html

No resolutions were made during this meeting.

In text format:


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

                Timed Text Working Group Teleconference

23 Oct 2014

   See also: [2]IRC log

      [2] http://www.w3.org/2014/10/23-tt-irc


          jdsmith, nigel, courtney, pal, glenn





     * [3]Topics
         1. [4]Santa Clara F2F October (TPAC)
         2. [5]IMSC CR Exit Criteria
         3. [6]WebVTT publication
         4. [7]Action items
         5. [8]Issues raised
         6. [9]Change Proposals - progress and review
     * [10]Summary of Action Items

   <trackbot> Date: 23 October 2014

   <scribe> scribeNick: nigel

Santa Clara F2F October (TPAC)


     [11] https://www.w3.org/wiki/TimedText/tpac2014

   nigel: I've set aside Monday for a variety of things and
   Tuesday for TTML2, and added multimodal interaction and audio

   jdsmith: Will the audio rendering include use cases and

   nigel: Yes, e.g. audio description scripting or captured speech
   ... In the absence of other info I'll define lunch to be at
   ... and morning break at 10:00 and afternoon break 15:30.
   ... but of course we can be flexible.

IMSC CR Exit Criteria

   nigel: We have a choice about putting in exit criteria. I've
   listed some considerations in the agenda.

   pal: I'm still gathering information. There are already entry
   criteria for PR. Those steps are clear.

   nigel: The steps are clear but the fulfillment of them is
   unclear to me - at least we have quite a lot of flexibility.

   pal: That's deliberate; some flexibility is useful for the
   working group.

   nigel: Yes, and for this document we have to resolve the
   flexibility into a decision.

   pal: Section 7.2.4 describes the implementation considerations.

   nigel: There are a whole bunch of other questions that fall
   under those too (e.g. what's listed in the agenda)



     [12] http://www.w3.org/2014/Process-20140801/#implementation-experience

   nigel: My view is it would be useful to state criteria now so
   we know when to move to PR.

   pal: We don't need to do it now though - we can wait until
   after testing has started.

   glenn: The criteria can be as weak as we want to make them. For
   example the HTML spec followed a weak definition of adequacy.

   nigel: I agree: I listed the considerations that we should
   think about - we don't have to use them all.

   glenn: We need a story for each of the bullets in 7.2.4.

   pal: In the 2005 process 'adequate implementation experience'
   was undefined, whereas in the 2014 process
   ... it is listed. By definition we have to show the Director we
   have a good answer for each of those bullets.

   glenn: That list isn't exhaustive or mandatory though. It's a
   'some of the things that will be considered'.
   ... For example, feature implementation will be considered.
   When we went to CR with TTML1 originally we faced the issue
   ... of what it means to specify a feature. This was related to
   the test suite requirements, and that drove our definition
   ... of features in the profiling mechanism, and our enumeration
   of those features in the spec.
   ... By enumerating them that gave us a list of things we knew
   we had to test and talk about re implementation activity.
   ... That's how we did it in TTML1. We can define features for
   testing however we want.

   pal: In my view the WG should keep its options open so it can
   declare when it thinks it has got far enough to move to PR.

   glenn: I agree with that. The point about feature
   implementation is expected to be talked about in the transition
   ... So you might want to consider enumerating the features of
   IMSC that would be considered criteria for testing
   ... implementations. It doesn't require that every syntactic or
   semantic point be labelled as a feature - it can be
   ... generalised for example.

   pal: I started a wiki page where we will be able to do that,
   which will also serve as the implementation report.



     [13] https://www.w3.org/wiki/TimedText/IMSC1_Implementation_Report

   pal: This is a place where we'll be able to list the features,
   sample files and the implementation experience we've
   ... received.

   nigel: From a project planning perspective we need some
   deliverable that we can target, and that needs to be defined.
   ... I'll present my thoughts on Monday on this.

WebVTT publication


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

   Proposal: publish the staged snapshot of WebVTT as a FPWD.

   glenn: That draft references the DOM4 spec and the Encoding
   Spec. I believe there are now W3C counterparts to those.
   ... Can we change those before going to FPWD?
   ... Also HTML - all are referenced as WHATWG and I'd like to
   see them changed to the W3C versions if that can be done.
   ... That's the only blocking issue for me.

   nigel: I think the way to do that is to file a bug using the
   link in the top right.

   glenn: okay I'll do that.

   nigel: We'll carry this forward proposal to Monday.

   Proposal: use [15]http://www.w3.org/TR/webvtt1/ for the short

     [15] http://www.w3.org/TR/webvtt1/

Action items


   <trackbot> action-283 -- Nigel Megitt to And dsinger to respond
   to mpeg liaison -- due 2014-11-01 -- OPEN


     [16] http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/tracker/actions/283

   action-283: Mike and Dave responded on TTWG's behalf with edits
   from Nigel and Cyril.

   <trackbot> Notes added to action-283 And dsinger to respond to
   mpeg liaison.

   close action-283

   <trackbot> Closed action-283.


   <trackbot> action-332 -- Glenn Adams to Add schema support for
   ISD vocabulary -- due 2014-10-27 -- OPEN


     [17] http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/tracker/actions/332

   glenn: Still working on this one.


   <trackbot> action-333 -- Pierre-Anthony Lemieux to Create a one
   pager to cover the plan for the director's meeting for taking
   imsc1 to cr. -- due 2014-10-27 -- OPEN


     [18] http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/tracker/actions/333

   pal: That's in progress, dependent on completing the response
   to comments received during the review period, scheduled for

Issues raised

   nigel: I raised 3 issues to cover the steps needed for the
   external short code processor profile parameter.
   ... In order they are issue-353, issue-351 and issue-352


   <trackbot> issue-353 -- Normatively define short code
   processorProfiles parameter -- raised


     [19] http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/tracker/issues/353


   <trackbot> issue-351 -- Update IANA registration for TTML2 --


     [20] http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/tracker/issues/351


   <trackbot> issue-352 -- Add Media Registration Annex -- raised


     [21] http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/tracker/issues/352

   glenn: I would prefer to put all of these into a separate
   document, not TTML2.
   ... We could publish a WG Note for example that contains these
   three items.

   nigel: Is there any particular reason not to put it in TTML2?

   glenn: We had a lot of iterations with IANA to get it into
   TTML1 so it would be good to disconnect it.
   ... Plus there's nothing normative in TTML2 that needs to make
   reference to it. In fact its the other way round -
   ... This material might make reference to TTML2 but nothing in
   TTML2 normatively needs to make use of it right now.
   ... It's strictly a function for people embedding TTML2 in MPEG

   nigel: I'd go further - there's no reason it shouldn't apply to
   TTML1 too.
   ... We don't have a product for this yet - I guess we can add

   glenn: Also we need to understand the issue of what it means if
   both the profile and processorProfiles parameters
   ... are included simultaneously. How does that impact backward
   compatibility etc?

   nigel: That makes sense to me as long as e.g. MPEG is happy to
   reference a WG Note rather than a Recommendation.

   <scribe> ACTION: nigel Check with the MPEG folk if a WG Note
   would be acceptable. [recorded in

   <trackbot> Created ACTION-341 - Check with the mpeg folk if a
   wg note would be acceptable. [on Nigel Megitt - due

   Action-341: If a Note is okay, create a Product and reassign
   issue-351, issue-352 and issue-353 to that product.

   <trackbot> Notes added to Action-341 Check with the mpeg folk
   if a wg note would be acceptable..

   nigel: We'll follow that up on Monday or Tuesday.

   <glenn> re: WebVTT FPWD, see new bug report at
   [23]https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=27142 to
   resolve my concerns

     [23] https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=27142

Change Proposals - progress and review

   nigel: I should add this topic to the agenda for Tuesday since
   its a dependency for TTML2 currently.

   <scribe> ACTION: nigel Add Change Proposals to the TPAC agenda
   for Tuesday [recorded in

   <trackbot> Created ACTION-342 - Add change proposals to the
   tpac agenda for tuesday [on Nigel Megitt - due 2014-10-30].

   nigel: We'll meet at 8:30 California time in whatever room
   we're meeting in - happy travels to those travelling, and see
   you then.
   ... Adjourns meeting.

Summary of Action Items

   [NEW] ACTION: nigel Add Change Proposals to the TPAC agenda for
   Tuesday [recorded in
   [NEW] ACTION: nigel Check with the MPEG folk if a WG Note would
   be acceptable. [recorded in

   [End of minutes]

    Minutes formatted by David Booth's [27]scribe.perl version
    1.138 ([28]CVS log)
    $Date: 2014-10-23 15:07:28 $

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

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

Received on Thursday, 23 October 2014 15:10:40 UTC

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