W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-tt@w3.org > June 2015

{minutes} TTWG Meeting 2015-06-11

From: Nigel Megitt <nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2015 15:21:13 +0000
To: W3C Public TTWG <public-tt@w3.org>
Message-ID: <D19F6222.21C3E%nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk>
Thanks all for attending today's meeting. Minutes can be found in HTML format at http://www.w3.org/2015/06/11-tt-minutes.html


In text format:


   [1]W3C

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


                Timed Text Working Group Teleconference

11 Jun 2015

   See also: [2]IRC log

      [2] http://www.w3.org/2015/06/11-tt-irc


Attendees

   Present
          Andreas, Thierry, nigel, pal

   Regrets
          Frans

   Chair
          nigel

   Scribe
          nigel

Contents

     * [3]Topics
         1. [4]This Meeting
         2. [5]Action Items
         3. [6]Issues
         4. [7]IMSC CR2, Test Suite and Implementation Report
         5. [8]WebVTT review feedback
         6. [9]AOB
     * [10]Summary of Action Items
     __________________________________________________________

   <trackbot> Date: 11 June 2015

   <scribe> scribe: nigel

This Meeting

   nigel: Goes through agenda. AOB?

   group: no AOB

Action Items

   nigel: The AIs in this section are all for Glenn, but he's not
   on the call right now so we'll move on.

Issues

   issue-389?

   <trackbot> issue-389 -- Embedded graphics don't fully meet
   requirement -- raised

   <trackbot>
   [11]http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/tracker/issues/389


     [11] http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/tracker/issues/389


   reopen issue-389

   <trackbot> Re-opened issue-389.

   nigel: I noticed that the requirement for embedded images also
   includes a requirement for any
   ... source text to be included, as a SHALL. This isn't anywhere
   in TTML2. I guess a resolution to this,
   ... following on from our discussions on this topic for IMSC 1,
   could be to relax the requirement.

   issue-369?

   <trackbot> issue-369 -- The R### numbers in Annex L are not all
   correct -- pending review

   <trackbot>
   [12]http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/tracker/issues/369


     [12] http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/tracker/issues/369


   nigel: Nobody can sensibly review this right now because the
   html hasn't been generated for the ED.
   ... I've left that for Glenn, but I can do it if needed. He did
   tell me he would do it.

   issue-390?

   <trackbot> issue-390 -- Editorial remarks -- pending review

   <trackbot>
   [13]http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/tracker/issues/390


     [13] http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/tracker/issues/390


   pal: I made a pass for consistency. I did not capitalise the
   first letters in lists because it's part of the
   ... same sentence.
   ... I also indented the equations to make them more readable.

   nigel: I noticed that one of the bullet lists doesn't end in a
   period, in §9.5.

   pal: Oh yes, there's one missing. I'll fix that...
   ... I'll do the one in Appendix B too.

   nigel: There are two in §9.2 too.

   pal: Done. I'll upload that.

   issue-391?

   <trackbot> issue-391 -- Yiddish in captions/subtitles --
   pending review

   <trackbot>
   [14]http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/tracker/issues/391


     [14] http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/tracker/issues/391


   pal: This is a request to add in some more code points. There's
   more than meets the eye there.
   ... I've reached out to the individual who was involved in
   adding Hebrew to CFF-TT and he doesn't
   ... know of a practical example of Yiddish in captions, which
   is why it was not in CFF-TT.
   ... I also looked at CLDR, and the Yiddish component is not
   complete, it's under 'work'. Also that
   ... section is only a recommendation, and the long term plan is
   to move the whole section into CLDR.
   ... I've made some progress to get Unicode to put into CLDR the
   areas that are safe for captions and
   ... subtitles. I think it's therefore safe to push this into
   IMSC 2. Maybe CLDR would be done by then,
   ... and the non-trivial work to include Yiddish would be done.
   So I propose to defer it to IMSC 2.

   nigel: Sounds reasonable to me. Any other views?
   ... I've reopened the issue and assigned it to IMSC 2.

   pal: CLDR has a whole list of practices for each locale, and so
   I think adding an additional
   ... category in each locale for subtitles and captions would be
   good - I reached out to the folk there
   ... and they were not unresponsive to the idea, so I plan to
   work with them, and make the reference
   ... in IMSC 2 just point to that. It would have much wider
   applicability than IMSC.

   <inserted> nigel: That's a great idea.

   issue-392?

   <trackbot> issue-392 -- Uppercase and periods in CLDR
   definitions -- pending review

   <trackbot>
   [15]http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/tracker/issues/392


     [15] http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/tracker/issues/392


   pal: It turns out that the CLDR examplar character set does not
   include upper case versions of the
   ... characters, I think by design to keep the list short and to
   use Unicode's lower case to upper case
   ... mappings. So it is true that on the previous version the
   upper case versions of characters in CLDR
   ... were not included in that set in IMSC 1 so I've modified
   the definition to include the upper case
   ... versions of the exemplar characters.
   ... It's in Annex B

   nigel: Looks reasonable to me.
   ... If you're chairing next week and there are no more
   comments, I think it would be fine to close this issue.

   issue-393?

   <trackbot> issue-393 -- Related Audio Object? -- pending review

   <trackbot>
   [16]http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/tracker/issues/393


     [16] http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/tracker/issues/393


   pal: The specification contains specific requirements for when
   associating an IMSC 1 document
   ... with a related video object. Maybe that's where the
   confusion was with the commenter. It doesn't
   ... say you can't associate the document with other media
   objects. I've added a note to clarify that.
   ... That's in §6.5

   nigel: Looks good to me.

   pal: I think the confusion is that MAY is not a permission,
   it's a possibility.

   issue-394?

   <trackbot> issue-394 -- Rational definition -- pending review

   <trackbot>
   [17]http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/tracker/issues/394


     [17] http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/tracker/issues/394


   pal: That's an awesome title!
   ... Glenn even commented.
   ... The commenter was being very thorough and noticing that the
   syntax is applied to a string, but
   ... 00 != 0 is a numerical comparison. The two strings are
   unequal even though their decimal
   ... interpretations are in fact equal. So I changed slightly
   the definition to make it clear that the
   ... comparison is on the parsed integer representations of the
   strings, not the strings themselves.
   ... And on the question "Can I use 01 01?" my answer is yes,
   just like you can use 240 10 instead of
   ... 24 1 - there's an infinite rabbit hole there if you try to
   limit what fractions are permitted. I don't
   ... see any reason to limit the set of valid fractions.

   nigel: Playing devil's advocate, is int("string") != 0? What
   about 'not a number'?

   pal: I thought about that, but it's an endless hole so I
   stopped there. Notice the following line limits
   ... the numerator and denominator to a string of digits, so you
   can't really do anything that would
   ... allow the int() operator to return something egregious. I
   believe the previous text was from TTML.

   nigel: I think that's right.
   ... Again, looks good to me.

   issue-395?

   <trackbot> issue-395 -- Error behavior -- pending review

   <trackbot>
   [18]http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/tracker/issues/395


     [18] http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/tracker/issues/395


   pal: There's no change. There is already a definition of what
   happens when there's an error.
   ... If you go back to §6.9, it says the sequence of ISDs must
   go through the HRM without error, so if
   ... there's an error then that fails.

   atai2: It may be related to the processor behaviour rather than
   the document conformance.

   pal: We kept that open because it depends on the circumstances.

   nigel: Are you not also saying that any compliant processor can
   always process a compliant document?

   pal: Exactly. If the error occurs then that defines the
   document as non-compliant, and therefore
   ... outside the standard.

   atai2: Is it worth saying anything about error recovery?

   pal: We could add a note that error recovery is not specified.

   atai2: I think this could be helpful so that if a document is
   not compliant to one of the profiles of
   ... IMSC it does not mean that a processor must reject the
   document and abort processing. It is just
   ... undefined what happens.

   pal: §3.2.1 in TTML1 is a generic processor conformance
   section, so let's see... there's some text there
   ... for instance "a processor does not a priori reject or abort
   the processing of a conformant Document Instance..."

   atai2: But this is the case of the non-conformant document
   instance.
   ... I think it's a really important topic - actually it was one
   of the reasons why HTML did not choose
   ... TTML for integration; they pointed out that the error
   handling for XML documents was too
   ... inflexible. So to say something about that could be
   helpful.

   pal: Do you want to add a comment to the issue and I'll add a
   note.

   issue-395: [meeting 2015-06-11] This specification does not
   specify processor behaviour when processing or transforming a
   non-conformant document instance

   <trackbot> Notes added to issue-395 Error behavior.

   issue-370?

   <trackbot> issue-370 -- Implement Requirements conformance
   changes described in Action-372 -- open

   <trackbot>
   [19]http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/tracker/issues/370


     [19] http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/tracker/issues/370


   nigel: I made some edits for this but there are further
   requirements that need reassessment.

IMSC CR2, Test Suite and Implementation Report

   action-388?

   <trackbot> action-388 -- Thierry Michel to Start preparing the
   imsc 1 implementation report form. -- due 2015-04-17 -- OPEN

   <trackbot>
   [20]http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/tracker/actions/388


     [20] http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/tracker/actions/388


   <tmichel>
   [21]https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/1/IMSC1-implementation/


     [21] https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/1/IMSC1-implementation/


   tmichel: I've started drafting the WBS questionnaire to gather
   the implementation report.
   ... Two issues to discuss.
   ... 1) We will be collecting reports from different companies,
   and probably some will not want to
   ... display their name or their implementation name. So either
   the result of the questionnaire
   ... remains team-only visible, or the other proposal is that
   the result is available for W3C members
   ... plus for people wanting to anonymise their company, they
   can send a text version of the WBS to
   ... me, so therefore there would be two places where we are
   collecting, either the online WBS or
   ... private reports sent directly to me. I'm not sure what you
   think?

   nigel: I've expressed my preference separately by email.

   tmichel: Okay, then the WBS is as now.
   ... 2) Then there's the question of the implementation name.
   ... And there's the format issue - I wanted to reproduce the
   table like pal did. I've asked the system
   ... team to add support for tables etc. Or the other solution
   is to use <ul>. I'm not a fan.

   nigel: I think it's good enough, that's all.

   tmichel: Okay we can stick with that. If you look at the
   implementation I've added 10 questions. I
   ... will be adding all the tests. If you have any remarks or
   suggestions feel free to send to the group
   ... and to me.
   ... One last detail: For each question the response is
   optional. Should I make all the questions
   ... mandatory? I was thinking about keeping them optional, so
   if people don't want to respond
   ... we can consider it as not implemented.

   atai2: I think it's fine to keep it optional so you can get
   more results otherwise people won't submit
   ... if they have some questions missing.

   nigel: Agreed.

   tmichel: Okay. The only two questions I will make mandatory are
   the company name and the
   ... implementation name.
   ... We must track those to avoid non-serious responses.

   nigel: I think we need to ask separately for the product name
   and the name to show on the report, which
   ... could be anonymous.

   tmichel: Should we require people to have W3C accounts?

   pal: I think we should minimise the pain. The fundamental issue
   is that we're asking people who
   ... are not familiar with W3C and the process to contribute
   details of their implementations, so the
   ... least amount of work the better.

   atai2: Agree with pal on this.

   tmichel: That was also my view, which is why I didn't require a
   W3C account to respond. I'm fine
   ... with that solution. I do need to request the person's email
   so we can investigate if necessary.

   nigel: That's right. By the way I also support this approach of
   not needing a W3C account.

   tmichel: What should I ask for, an email address?

   nigel: Just ask for a way to contact the respondent - they can
   choose how.

   tmichel: I'll complete this and we can review it next week.

   pal: How can this 'go out'?

   tmichel: We can send it to potential implementors that we know
   of as part of our outreach to them.

   pal: Okay, then I owe you a list of potential implementors.
   Have you put together an email or anything?

   tmichel: Not yet. I can start drafting something.

   <scribe> ACTION: tmichel draft an outreach email for the IMSC
   implementation report [recorded in
   [22]http://www.w3.org/2015/06/11-tt-minutes.html#action01]

   <trackbot> Created ACTION-405 - Draft an outreach email for the
   imsc implementation report [on Thierry Michel - due
   2015-06-18].

   pal: I'll put Action-387 on the top of my list now.

WebVTT review feedback

   action-395?

   <trackbot> action-395 -- Thierry Michel to Chase the
   accessibility wg for a date for getting webvtt feedback -- due
   2015-04-17 -- OPEN

   <trackbot>
   [23]http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/tracker/actions/395


     [23] http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/tracker/actions/395


   tmichel: The a11y guys had already responded and said they
   would probably send more details,
   ... which we have not received, so I pinged them last week and
   they said that they will have no more
   ... comments.

   close action-395

   <trackbot> Closed action-395.

AOB

   nigel: I did want to ask about HTMLCue but shall we postpone
   that?

   atai2: Yes, we can talk about that next week.

   pal: I'll contact timeless about the IMSC issues, and point him
   at the tracker.

   nigel: Thanks for that.
   ... We're out of time for today so I'll adjourn. I'm away for 2
   weeks: thanks in advance to Pierre
   ... who has volunteered to chair. See you in 3 weeks. [adjourns
   meeting]

Summary of Action Items

   [NEW] ACTION: tmichel draft an outreach email for the IMSC
   implementation report [recorded in
   [24]http://www.w3.org/2015/06/11-tt-minutes.html#action01]

   [End of minutes]
     __________________________________________________________


    Minutes formatted by David Booth's [25]scribe.perl version
    1.140 ([26]CVS log)
    $Date: 2015/06/11 15:20:28 $

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

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



Received on Thursday, 11 June 2015 15:21:44 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 5 October 2017 18:24:23 UTC