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

{minutes} TTWG Meeting 2015-11-26

From: Nigel Megitt <nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2015 16:04:06 +0000
To: Timed Text Working Group <public-tt@w3.org>
Message-ID: <D27CDDC3.2CC6F%nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk>
Thanks all for attending today's meeting. Minutes can be found in HTML format at http://www.w3.org/2015/11/26-tt-minutes.html


In text:


   [1]W3C

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


                Timed Text Working Group Teleconference

26 Nov 2015

   See also: [2]IRC log

      [2] http://www.w3.org/2015/11/26-tt-irc


Attendees

   Present
          nigel, pal, tmichel, atai

   Regrets
          dakim, Frans

   Chair
          nigel

   Scribe
          nigel

Contents

     * [3]Topics
         1. [4]This meeting
         2. [5]IMSC issues, pull requests etc
         3. [6]TTML and WebVTT Mapping Document
         4. [7]AOB
     * [8]Summary of Action Items
     * [9]Summary of Resolutions
     __________________________________________________________

   <scribe> scribe: nigel

This meeting

   pal: Maybe we can close the loop on the process issue
   ... Also possibly the aspect ratio issue
   ... And review the new issue on smpte:backgroundImage in case
   we can close it straight away.
   ... So we can make some progress.

   nigel: Agreed. So we'll focus on IMSC 1.
   ... AOB?

   group: none.

IMSC issues, pull requests etc

   pal: Can we start with the process question?
   ... In issue-92 nigel noted that the document still references
   the 2014 process. It was
   ... mentioned that we automatically adopt the new process with
   revisions, so it should
   ... be updated to 2015. I don't remember discussing it - maybe
   it's not an issue because
   ... the changes are not meaningful to us this time, but in the
   future, automatic adoption
   ... of new process documents in the middle of developing a new
   document could be
   ... really disruptive.

   nigel: I think this is really important - I couldn't find the
   source of this assertion either.

   tmichel: As I recall the only process change we approved was to
   2014 but for the latest
   ... it was not discussed within the group.

   pal: That matches my recollection too.

   tmichel: Then if we want to adopt the new process we should
   check with the group if
   ... everyone is happy with it. Who requested that we use the
   latest process by the way?

   nigel: I'm pretty sure that plh asserted that having adopted
   the 2014 process we by default adopt future versions as well.
   ... I can't see where that's written down though.

   pal: I've searched through the Process document and can see no
   such thing.

   nigel: Me too!

   tmichel: It would be odd to me if it says that.

   nigel: In that case it looks as though we have not agreed to
   adopt the 2015 process.

   tmichel: Shall I investigate if we are required to move to the
   2015 process or we can proceed with the 2014 one?

   nigel: Yes please.

   tmichel: Is the concern just for IMSC or also for TTML2 and
   WebVTT?

   nigel: It's for everything - we need to be clear which process
   we're working under.
   ... Also by the way I'm pretty sure there are no substantive
   differences that would affect us with the 2015 process.

   tmichel: It's not a major change like it was to adopt 2014.

   nigel: There is actually a Latest Operative Version link so we
   need to go back and check which one we said we'd adopt:
   [10]http://www.w3.org/2015/Process-20150901/


     [10] http://www.w3.org/2015/Process-20150901/


   pal: Maybe it's simpler not to adopt unless we're compelled to,
   then we don't have to make any changes.

   nigel: We have 2 choices (unless we're compelled to move to
   2015):
   ... 1. Stay with 2014
   ... 2. Propose to adopt 2015, use our Decision Process and then
   adopt it and update our specs accordingly.

   <scribe> ACTION: tmichel Investigate if we are required to move
   to the 2015 process [recorded in
   [11]http://www.w3.org/2015/11/26-tt-minutes.html#action01]

   <trackbot> Created ACTION-451 - Investigate if we are required
   to move to the 2015 process [on Thierry Michel - due
   2015-12-03].

   tmichel: I'll be able to report back on this at the next
   telecon

   pal: You can also put the answer in issue #92, which we may be
   able to close directly.

   nigel: We need the info in the meeting also.

   tmichel: I'll first find out the situation and then we can make
   a decision about changing the document.

   pal: Sounds good.

   [12]https://github.com/w3c/imsc/issues/92


     [12] https://github.com/w3c/imsc/issues/92


   nigel: Shall we look at the aspectRatio issue?

   pal: Yes, you mentioned to me that there may be some more
   feedback on this.

   nigel: There's nothing formal yet - a group is considering if
   it would be beneficial in addition to ttp:aspectRatio also to
   signal a safe area,
   ... outside of which the document contains no regions. This
   would allow for some scaling
   ... scenarios to be met that can't otherwise be handled.
   ... Until we receive something formal we can't formally respond
   though.

   pal: Okay then we can probably close issue #84
   [13]https://github.com/w3c/imsc/issues/84 next week.

     [13] https://github.com/w3c/imsc/issues/84


   nigel: Have I reviewed the note for that?

   pal: Yes, and I think from your comments that you're happy so
   we can close it next week.

   nigel: Yes.

   pal: The next issue is regarding smpte:backgroundImage
   [14]https://github.com/w3c/imsc/issues/97


     [14] https://github.com/w3c/imsc/issues/97


   nigel: Looking at this in detail, the #image feature is defined
   by SMPTE-TT, but that
   ... has a weird referencing problem, in that it defines
   conformance in relation to its
   ... section 5.7.3, but the backgroundImage semantics are
   defined in a different section,
   ... being 5.5.3.

   pal: So the bug here is in ST2052 §5.9.2 missing the reference
   to §5.5.2.

   nigel: Agree - that's a bug in SMPTE-TT, but it doesn't help us
   here!

   pal: We can just put a note that this bug exists.

   nigel: Well that wouldn't help the formal problem.

   pal: I think we're overthinking this - it's clearly enumerated
   as part of the vocabulary.

   nigel: I'm not sure if it's a note or something more formal but
   I would suggest specifying
   ... that we mean to include the definition of
   smpte:backgroundImage from ST2052 §5.5.3 in the vocabulary
   supported by the #image extension.
   ... Ideally that would normative.

   pal: I think it's unambiguous but if you had an issue reading
   it then we can add the note.

   nigel: Okay I'll add a comment about this to the issue.

   pal: Can we close the duplicate
   [15]https://github.com/w3c/imsc/issues/93 ?

     [15] https://github.com/w3c/imsc/issues/93


   nigel: yes, no problem

   <scribe> ... done.

   pal: The rest are either for review or I have some actions to
   do for IMSC 2.

TTML and WebVTT Mapping Document

   nigel: Andreas, are you going to migrate this to git?

   atai: Yes, I need to check about the detail of how to do this.
   If I don't have enough information I'll come back to nigel and
   plh to ask for more.

   nigel: Pierre, how did you do it for IMSC?

   pal: I used a script that converts a Mercurial repo to a git
   repo, so I just did that.
   ... I created a local git repo, imported all of the IMSC 1
   Mercurial repo into that, then I
   ... merged into that git repo the one that plh put up in
   github, then pushed all my changes
   ... back into github.
   ... Did plh set up the repo on github already?

   nigel: Yes he did, at
   [16]https://github.com/w3c/ttml-webvtt-mapping


     [16] https://github.com/w3c/ttml-webvtt-mapping


   atai: He did not merge the repo.

   pal: Yes, you have to do that yourself. Create a local github
   repo, then use the
   ... Mercurial to Git script to move everything across, then
   separately check out the
   ... github repo, and merge into the local copy of the github
   repo the converted git repo,
   ... then push back upstream.

   atai: That's feasible. My only question was how to restrict it.

   pal: There's a git command that allows you to pick a directory
   and delete all others, and
   ... make that one a root directory. I did that after the
   Mercurial to git conversion.
   ... The command that re-roots keeps all history.

   atai: Would you be able to describe this in a few lines?

   pal: If you send me a reminder email I'll do that.

   atai: Thank you! That's perfect.

   pal: If you have branches that makes it really painful.

   atai: We don't have any.
   ... Do we need to move anything else like the test suite?

   pal: For IMSC?

   nigel: They're moved already - they're in sub-directories of
   the top level.

AOB

   atai: Pierre, Nigel and I did a presentation at IBC on TTML,
   EBU-TT-D and IMSC. Should we share the slides somehow?

   nigel: Just natively?

   atai: Maybe the easiest is to email it as a PDF to the list.

   nigel: I did do that presentation as chair of TTWG, so I don't
   mind sharing the slides.
   ... Maybe the best thing is to upload to the wiki?

   pal: Yes, although I'd rather avoid putting on the official
   TTWG wiki things that are not
   ... official TTWG. My recommendation is for someone to host it
   and send a link to the
   ... reflector. That would be my preference.

   nigel: We did do the presentation on the EBU stand so it might
   make sense to see if EBU
   ... can host the slides also.

   pal: That would be a lot cleaner.

   <scribe> ACTION: nigel Check with Frans about hosting the IBC
   slides on the EBU space, and send a link around. [recorded in
   [17]http://www.w3.org/2015/11/26-tt-minutes.html#action02]

   <trackbot> Created ACTION-452 - Check with frans about hosting
   the ibc slides on the ebu space, and send a link around. [on
   Nigel Megitt - due 2015-12-03].

   nigel: Looking at future meetings, I've not put any in for 24th
   and 31st December, with
   ... a restart on Jan 7. Hope that's okay with everyone.

   pal: Yes, fine. I hope to publish a new CR of IMSC 1 by year's
   end, and see no blockers.

   nigel: We need to merge all the PRs next week and agree a
   resolution to proceed with a
   ... new CR. When do the PR review periods end?

   pal: Some of them end on Tuesday.

   nigel: Then we can put out a call for consensus ahead of the
   meeting to avoid surprising
   ... anyone, and avoid falling foul of the Decision Process.
   ... Okay, that's on the agenda for next week.
   ... That's all for this week, thanks everyone, see you same
   time next week. [adjourns meeting]

Summary of Action Items

   [NEW] ACTION: nigel Check with Frans about hosting the IBC
   slides on the EBU space, and send a link around. [recorded in
   [18]http://www.w3.org/2015/11/26-tt-minutes.html#action02]
   [NEW] ACTION: tmichel Investigate if we are required to move to
   the 2015 process [recorded in
   [19]http://www.w3.org/2015/11/26-tt-minutes.html#action01]

Summary of Resolutions

   [End of minutes]
     __________________________________________________________


    Minutes formatted by David Booth's [20]scribe.perl version
    1.144 ([21]CVS log)
    $Date: 2015/11/26 16:02:53 $

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

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






----------------------------

http://www.bbc.co.uk

This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and may contain personal views which are not the views of the BBC unless specifically stated.
If you have received it in error, please delete it from your system.
Do not use, copy or disclose the information in any way nor act in reliance on it and notify the sender immediately.
Please note that the BBC monitors e-mails sent or received.
Further communication will signify your consent to this.

---------------------
Received on Thursday, 26 November 2015 16:04:38 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 5 October 2017 18:24:25 UTC