W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-tt@w3.org > November 2016

{minutes} TTWG Meeting 2016-11-03

From: Nigel Megitt <nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 3 Nov 2016 15:41:01 +0000
To: W3C Public TTWG <public-tt@w3.org>
Message-ID: <D4410858.2ECDC%nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk>
Thanks all for attending today's TTWG meeting. Minutes can be found in HTML format at http://www.w3.org/2016/11/03-tt-minutes.html

Two reminders:

1. Register for the London F2F meeting<https://www.w3.org/wiki/TimedText/F2F-jan-2017> by Dec 23 please, if you intend to come.
2. Review the TTML Profiles document<https://www.w3.org/TR/ttml-profile-registry/> which we plan to update in mid-November, and then hope to leave alone for a while.

Minutes in text format:


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

                Timed Text Working Group Teleconference

03 Nov 2016

   See also: [2]IRC log

      [2] http://www.w3.org/2016/11/03-tt-irc


          Glenn, Nigel, Thierry, Pierre





     * [3]Topics
         1. [4]This Meeting
         2. [5]IMSC
         3. [6]Profiles registry
         4. [7]TTML1 & TTML2 issues, actions, PRs, editorial
            actions etc
     * [8]Summary of Action Items
     * [9]Summary of Resolutions

   <scribe> scribe: Nigel

   <scribe> scribenick: nigel

This Meeting

   nigel: I don't think we need F2F planning on the agenda. I know
   I have an action to check
   ... in with David about WebVTT being on the agenda (or not),
   which I haven't managed to do yet.

   tmichel: I think we should contact the WebVTT folk early to
   motivate them to attend.

   nigel: Ok

   pierre: So the plan is to go through another Wide Review of

   tmichel: Yes, because the spec has so many new features that we
   must do that.

   pierre: So will the comments on the first wide review be
   responded to?

   tmichel: Yes, we should do that, and then make the spec edits
   for the next version. I'm still
   ... missing a lot of info.

   nigel: I see from the CG that there are some responses in
   favour of the current dispositions,
   ... so I expect David to come back to the WG with an agreed
   proposal on that basis at some point.

   tmichel: I added a column to the dispositions wiki and expect
   the WG to process each one
   ... and add an appropriate label. I also plan to identify which
   changes are substantive.

   nigel: Back to the agenda for today, I propose IMSC, Profiles
   then TTML - there's nothing else
   ... to cover that I'm aware of.
   ... By the way I noticed that the Unicode ticket we have has
   not been updated since Pierre's
   ... comment 7 months ago. I don't know what's happening with

   tmichel: I suggest asking r12a if he can help unlock that.

   <scribe> ACTION: tmichel Ask Richard Ishida for assistance in
   unblocking the Unicode ticket 8915. [recorded in

     [10] http://www.w3.org/2016/11/03-tt-minutes.html#action01]

   <trackbot> Created ACTION-485 - Ask richard ishida for
   assistance in unblocking the unicode ticket 8915. [on Thierry
   Michel - due 2016-11-10].

   nigel: Any other business for today?

   group: No other business.


   Pierre: I'm getting closer to a real proposal for replying to
   DVB and for a next version of IMSC.
   ... Hopefully by next meeting I will have something concrete to


   <trackbot> action-479 -- Pierre-Anthony Lemieux to Refactor the
   imsc repository in preparation for future versions of imsc. --
   due 2016-09-26 -- PENDINGREVIEW


     [11] http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/tracker/actions/479

   nigel: The pull request is enough for us to track this. So I
   will close this.

   close action-479

   <trackbot> Closed action-479.

   Pierre: I think I can merge that Pull Request too.

   nigel: Agreed.

Profiles registry

   nigel: Since we said we would come back to this in mid-November
   I just wanted to highlight
   ... that now is a good time for everyone to review the document
   and make any proposals
   ... for edits, otherwise, hold your peace!

TTML1 & TTML2 issues, actions, PRs, editorial actions etc

   nigel: There's been a lot of work over the last week.
   ... First, Wide Review:
   ... We have a date for TAG review, at their Tokyo meeting on
   23rd November.
   ... I have prepared a high level architectural summary of the
   changes, and sent that draft
   ... to Glenn for review. I've also made the TAG aware of the
   vocabulary change annex.

   Glenn: I'll review that and give you my feedback.

   nigel: Thanks.

   Glenn: What does the wide review require, in terms of a new WD?

   nigel: Good question. We did say we would have a new WD for
   wide review prepared by
   ... this time, but we're not there yet.

   Glenn: We could publish a new WD just not a proper equivalent
   to "LCWD" right now.

   nigel: How much time do we need to get there?

   Glenn: I'm working on a new annex on root container region,
   then I need another one on
   ... the root temporal interval, that pulls together all of the
   open issues on timing that we
   ... had discussed. I put them in the agenda because there's no
   single good place in the spec
   ... to do that, and it seems like we could use normative
   ... They are the two big ticket items. That will probably take
   at least a week more to deal
   ... with both of them. Then we have a variety of new issues
   that we have been working
   ... through, and some of them have taken a while to distil our
   thinking down to a point at
   ... which I can make changes. Then there's the audio
   description functionality, and the editorial
   ... notes throughout the document that do not have
   corresponding issues. Some of those
   ... may be substantive. I'm thinking that it's probably going
   to take the next month or two
   ... to resolve everything in there, and it depends how many new
   issues are filed. I'm glad
   ... for Pierre's review comments, though they do add further
   ... It could be near the end of the year before a "last call"

   nigel: From a Horizontal Review perspective we are encouraged
   to begin the review earlier
   ... rather than later so given that I would prefer to issue a
   new WD as soon as possible and
   ... then begin the review on it, and if we add further
   increments then the review delta will
   ... be smaller.

   Glenn: Then I will prepare a new WD snapshot and work with
   Thierry to check it is okay.

   tmichel: Let me know when you are ready.

   Glenn: Then I will use the automatic publishing system. I need
   to get an ID etc for that.

   nigel: We need to point to a resolution for that, and actually
   as long as the pull requests'
   ... review periods have expired then the resolution from
   Sapporo is sufficient to allow us
   ... to publish.

   tmichel: If you can provide that URL that's what we need.

   nigel: Yes, it's on our wiki page under historic meetings.
   ... If I remember correctly we decided that on the first day of
   the Sapporo meeting.
   ... The other Horizontal Review point to raise is the updated
   draft security questionnaire
   ... response that Thierry sent recently.

   Glenn: Do I need to add an appendix called Security
   Considerations to the spec?

   tmichel: SVG has one.

   nigel: I am not aware of anything that requires us to add such
   a section.

   tmichel: I don't think there's any requirement.

   Glenn: Okay, if there is one then please add an issue to it. If
   we were to have one then
   ... there would be very little in it since we have no
   scripting. However now that we have
   ... added resource fetching and links there may be a possible
   need for it at some point.

   nigel: I would defer this until we get Horizontal or Wide
   Review comments back that say
   ... we need it.

   Glenn: Good Idea.

   <tmichel> +1

   Glenn: I also have a follow-up question about the IANA media
   type registration - what did we do?

   nigel: We put it in

   ... which is a WG Note. The IANA registration points to that.

     [12] https://www.w3.org/TR/ttml-profile-registry/

   Glenn: In TTML1 we referenced the appendix, so I plan to vector
   references to the profiles registry.

   nigel: Last time we talked about this we said we'd reference
   the IANA registration because
   ... that's normative, but I'm concerned about circular

   tmichel: I discussed this with plh and we can actually
   normatively reference WG Notes, as
   ... long as we get approval from the Director.
   ... There's no process requirement here; I'll send the group a
   link to some guidance on this.

   Glenn: I'll double check - it may not be that we even need a
   normative reference.

   nigel: Back to the Security Questionnaire, I hear no objections
   so I propose that Thierry
   ... sends it in current form when we have published the
   upcoming WD.

   tmichel: Ok, give me an action for that.

   <scribe> ACTION: tmichel Shortly after publishing the next TTML
   WD send the security questionnaire for horizontal review
   [recorded in

     [13] http://www.w3.org/2016/11/03-tt-minutes.html#action02]

   <trackbot> Created ACTION-486 - Shortly after publishing the
   next ttml wd send the security questionnaire for horizontal
   review [on Thierry Michel - due 2016-11-10].

   nigel: That's all on Horizontal review, so let's look at issue


     [14] https://github.com/w3c/ttml2/issues/217#issuecomment-257919913

   Pierre: This is specifically for tts:textOutline.

   Glenn: We have to pick a value for cell lengths for
   tts:textOutline, but the note in TTML1
   ... was to base it on the direction associated with the block
   progression direction. We have
   ... two notes that refer to that which makes it tied to the
   writing mode, and Pierre asked
   ... if that is really desired here, rather than just referring
   to the height of the computed cell
   ... size. I tend to agree with him.
   ... I'm not aware of any implementations that make it sensitive
   to writing modes. Even if
   ... TTPE does then I would be willing to change it. I think
   there's relatively low risk in making
   ... this normative and adding a TTML1 errata to change that

   Pierre: Thanks for that great summary. The note's example does
   not actually state the
   ... value of writingMode so maybe that was not even the
   intention at the beginning, it is
   ... hard to tell.

   nigel: That works for me. From a semantic perspective the other
   option is not to permit the

   <tmichel> I will drop and will be back in 5 minutes

   nigel: c unit here at all, but that's not good either. I did
   also wonder if we should have
   ... units for cell height and cell width independently since
   the c unit is inherently ambiguous,
   ... or at least context dependent. However our direction of
   travel here should be to move
   ... towards rw and rh units so I do not want to add that
   complexity at this stage.

   Glenn: Okay that's enough for me to go on for now. I don't
   anticipate any other objections.

   nigel: I've added a note to the issue.

   <tmichel> I am back.

   nigel: I issued a pull request for the tts:textShadow example
   but had to remove the inset
   ... keyword and the spread - they're not supported in CSS3
   text-shadow. I wondered if
   ... there is a reason why we need them or if we can just align
   with CSS.

   Glenn: You might want to check what their rationale is, you
   could ask Bert Bos.

   nigel: My default proposal is to align with CSS text-shadow for
   now and if CSS adds inset
   ... or spread then we can consider adding that later.

   Glenn: I see that Elika is the editor, so it wouldn't hurt to
   ask her.
   ... In the meantime I don't mind you making those changes in
   the pull request.

   nigel: That pull request is ready to go with those changes.

   Glenn: Okay I'll review that and merge it.

   nigel: Thanks - I've just realised the documentation on the
   shadow type in the schema may
   ... need to be updated also. I'll have a look at that.
   ... The pull request is

   ... Thanks everyone. [adjourns meeting]

     [15] https://github.com/w3c/ttml2/pull/218

Summary of Action Items

   [NEW] ACTION: tmichel Ask Richard Ishida for assistance in
   unblocking the Unicode ticket 8915. [recorded in
   [NEW] ACTION: tmichel Shortly after publishing the next TTML WD
   send the security questionnaire for horizontal review [recorded
   in [17]http://www.w3.org/2016/11/03-tt-minutes.html#action02]

     [16] http://www.w3.org/2016/11/03-tt-minutes.html#action01

     [17] http://www.w3.org/2016/11/03-tt-minutes.html#action02

Summary of Resolutions

   [End of minutes]

    Minutes formatted by David Booth's [18]scribe.perl version
    1.148 ([19]CVS log)
    $Date: 2016/11/03 15:38:43 $

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

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



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, 3 November 2016 15:41:32 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 5 October 2017 18:24:33 UTC