Re: {minutes} TTWG Meeting 2016-11-24

On Thu, Nov 24, 2016 at 9:13 AM, Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com> wrote:

> Regarding possible use of JSON, we should avoid it, since the JSON license
> is not considered an open source license. And recently, the ASF has
> indicated any project using JSON must discard or replace it with something
> else that doesn't use the JSON license.
>
> Personally, I would oppose defining any alternative serialization format,
> leaving that for some other organization if it is desired.
>

Further info on JSON license described here:

https://tanguy.ortolo.eu/blog/article46/json-license


>
>
> On Thu, Nov 24, 2016 at 9:01 AM, Nigel Megitt <nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
>> A small meeting today since it is Thanksgiving and even people not in the
>> US are travelling, but useful to be able to discuss a couple of things
>> including the initial TAG review meeting, planning for the F2F meeting and
>> liaisons. Thanks to those who were able to attend.
>>
>> Minutes can be found in HTML format at https://www.w3.org/2016/11/
>> 24-tt-minutes.html
>>
>> In text format:
>>
>>    [1]W3C
>>
>>       [1] http://www.w3.org/
>>
>>                 Timed Text Working Group Teleconference
>>
>> 24 Nov 2016
>>
>>    See also: [2]IRC log
>>
>>       [2] http://www.w3.org/2016/11/24-tt-irc
>>
>> Attendees
>>
>>    Present
>>           Nigel, Pierre, Rohit
>>
>>    Regrets
>>           Glenn, Philippe, Andreas, Thierry
>>
>>    Chair
>>           Nigel
>>
>>    Scribe
>>           nigel
>>
>> Contents
>>
>>      * [3]Topics
>>          1. [4]This meeting
>>          2. [5]F2F agenda and TAG review
>>          3. [6]IMSC
>>          4. [7]Profiles registry
>>          5. [8]Unicode liaison
>>      * [9]Summary of Action Items
>>      * [10]Summary of Resolutions
>>      __________________________________________________________
>>
>>    <scribe> scribe: nigel
>>
>>    pierre: [describes implementation experience with imscjs]
>>
>>    -> [11]https://github.com/sandflow/imscJS
>>
>>      [11] https://github.com/sandflow/imscJS
>>
>> This meeting
>>
>>    nigel: There are just 3 of us, so I would propose to describe
>>    and minute last night's
>>    ... TAG meeting where they reviewed TTML2, also look at F2F
>>    agenda items, and
>>    ... cover the liaisons.
>>
>> F2F agenda and TAG review
>>
>>    nigel: Agenda items for the F2F?
>>    ... My goal for the meeting is to review the ED of TTML2 as it
>>    is at that time and try
>>    ... to get consensus on any remaining issues so that we can
>>    publish a "last call" style
>>    ... WD for wide review, i.e. to be the basis of the Candidate
>>    Recommendation.
>>    ... I would also like to review any IMSC 1.1 feedback.
>>
>>    Pierre: We may need 3-4 hours for that.
>>    ... I can make sure we get to that meeting with a good baseline
>>    IMSC 1.1 edit that
>>    ... addresses those issues that have been assigned to IMSC 1.1
>>    and proposals to defer
>>    ... some issues to IMSC2 etc.
>>
>>    nigel: As far as I know we will not be covering WebVTT
>>    feedback.
>>    ... Also we may have an observer from the TAG.
>>    ... I'd like to describe the TAG meeting's TTML2 review
>>    briefly.
>>    ... They focused on profiles, and alignment with CSS, mainly.
>>    Also if it is intended for
>>    ... browsers and how to support changes in display of HTML/CSS
>>    at defined times
>>    ... in a better way than the existing VTTCue implementations.
>>    ... On profiles, TAG isn't sure they're a good idea, mainly
>>    because they have a view that
>>    ... we should specify stuff that everyone implements/can
>>    implement.
>>    ... My view on that is that profiles in TTML are being used and
>>    that they form
>>    ... rungs on the ladder, i.e. labelled points of stability that
>>    people can rely on.
>>    ... On CSS, there was some good analysis that suggested that we
>>    may be making the
>>    ... alignment with HTML and CSS worse than we need to. They
>>    would like to help
>>    ... people understand how to translate TTML to HTML/CSS to
>>    reuse the rendering engines
>>    ... in user agents. In particular there are two areas of
>>    concern: 1. that we have some
>>    ... style attributes with names that sound like CSS properties
>>    but are actually different,
>>    ... such as fontVariant. 2. that we could align better the
>>    value space for specific style
>>    ... attributes, perhaps by not omitting values that have use,
>>    like "auto" in some cases.
>>    ... Finally they did consider the HTMLCue idea and were
>>    generally positive that something
>>    ... like that would be a good idea, but not confident about
>>    their ability to influence
>>    ... all browser makers.
>>
>>    Rohit: What do you think the TTWG should do?
>>
>>    nigel: In my view we should do one more pass on alignment with
>>    CSS to check
>>    ... style attribute names and value spaces, and also to
>>    consider what the fallback
>>    ... scenarios are for cases where our semantics are not (yet)
>>    supported in CSS.
>>
>>    Rohit: Would it be worth considering other serialisations than
>>    XML such as JSON?
>>
>>    Pierre: It's definitely possible to create a 1:1 mapping.
>>
>>    Rohit: It's easy.
>>
>>    Pierre: The question of what is the right mapping would depend
>>    on the exact use case.
>>    ... I mean what is the interoperability point for that
>>    exchange?
>>    ... If we know the use case then we can figure out the
>>    approach.
>>
>>    Rohit: Fair enough!
>>
>>    nigel: I'm reminded that Glenn told us that any serialisation
>>    that supports namespaces
>>    ... could be used. JSON does not support them out of the box of
>>    course, but we could
>>    ... define something.
>>
>>    Pierre: There are some solutions to that, such as specifying a
>>    qualifying name in the JSON structure.
>>    ... How we solve that problem depends on the use case and the
>>    interoperability point.
>>
>>    nigel: The last point on the TAG review relating to the F2F is
>>    that one of the TAG members
>>    ... who is based in London may attend part of our meeting as an
>>    observer, which I think
>>    ... would be great.
>>
>> IMSC
>>
>>    nigel: I just want to note that the liaison text is done, and
>>    unless there are any late
>>    ... changes to the text I sent to the reflector then it's just
>>    a matter of me finding time
>>    ... to turn the handle and send them out, which I plan to do
>>    very soon (e.g. tomorrow)
>>    ... That should get us the responses we are requesting in time
>>    for the F2F.
>>
>> Profiles registry
>>
>>    nigel: We are not quorate for this right now, deferring until
>>    next week.
>>
>> Unicode liaison
>>
>>    nigel: As on the agenda, there's an update to this - they're
>>    thinking about it!
>>
>>    Pierre: It's great that they are looking at it.
>>
>>    nigel: I think we're done for the agenda for today, so thank
>>    you guys very much for joining on thanksgiving and enjoy the
>>    rest of your day! [Adjourns meeting]
>>
>> Summary of Action Items
>>
>> Summary of Resolutions
>>
>>    [End of minutes]
>>      __________________________________________________________
>>
>>
>>     Minutes formatted by David Booth's [12]scribe.perl version
>>     1.148 ([13]CVS log)
>>     $Date: 2016/11/24 15:59:27 $
>>
>>      [12] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
>>      [13] 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, 24 November 2016 16:30:52 UTC