W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-tt@w3.org > February 2017

{minutes} TTWG Meeting 2017-02-23

From: Nigel Megitt <nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2017 17:27:57 +0000
To: W3C Public TTWG <public-tt@w3.org>
Message-ID: <D4D4CB89.391AD%nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk>
Thanks all for attending today's TTWG meeting. Minutes can be found in HTML format at https://www.w3.org/2017/02/23-tt-minutes.html

These minutes in text format:


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

                Timed Text Working Group Teleconference

23 Feb 2017

   See also: [2]IRC log

      [2] http://www.w3.org/2017/02/23-tt-irc


          Nigel, Andreas, Glenn, Mike, Pierre, Thierry




     * [3]Topics
         1. [4]This meeting
         2. [5]IMSC
         3. [6]TTML
     * [7]Summary of Action Items
     * [8]Summary of Resolutions

   <scribe> scribe: nigel

This meeting

   Nigel: Today, we have IMSC version naming and liaison draft,
   and next WD publication.
   ... And there are lots of TTML2 things, which we should try to
   cover some of at least.
   ... Any other points to cover today or other business?

   group: No AOB


   nigel: We have a proposal to use 1.1 instead of 1.0.1.
   ... Glenn earlier sent a formula for version numbering but did
   not cite any reference.

   Glenn: That's correct, it is from my experience.

   Nigel: Is there anyone who cannot live with the proposal to use
   IMSC 1.1?

   Pierre: On the form of the name, 1.1 in my mind goes too far in
   terms of industry perception;
   ... I was happy with an alternative like "Second edition".
   ... From a function perspective it also raises the profile
   feature designators.
   ... I would also be happy with something else like "IMSC 1
   Amendment 1" or "imsc1.0-am1" for example.
   ... For other SDOs that would convey the magnitude of the

   Glenn: That terminology has not been used in W3C before.

   Thierry: We do not have a clear policy in W3C - as long as plh
   agrees then it is quite open.
   ... It is up to the group.

   Andreas: I think I wrote already on the reflector what Pierre
   mentioned - I am unhappy with 1.1
   ... because that would imply a change that does not reflect the
   difference. It would be viewed
   ... as a major revision, which it is not. I would also favour
   1.0.1 but something else like
   ... amendment would work for me.

   Glenn: I would be okay with calling it "amendment 1". I don't
   really like it but since there
   ... is no tradition I don't think will object to it.

   Nigel: I am not sure about the objection to 1.0.1 since there
   is no prescribed rule that it breaks.
   ... I am also not sure about how "Amendment 1" would be
   considered since it sounds like
   ... an Edition.

   Glenn: This certainly isn't an Edition in the traditional sense
   of W3C.

   Nigel: I'm actually concerned about the nature of the objection
   itself since there is no documentary
   ... rule set that we are breaking.
   ... And I am also not happy with the impression that Amendment

   Thierry: There is no policy for this. We brought this name to
   Philippe a few weeks ago
   ... and, knowing the changes that go into the document, he
   agreed to it. That does not
   ... mean we cannot change it, but for W3C that's perfectly

   Glenn: An objection does not have to be based on a policy

   Andreas: I think we have really good reasons for breaking
   tradition here and also we are
   ... showing we are flexible and fast in dealing with changes to
   requirements which is a good thing.
   ... So there is a good reason to do something different from
   what we did before.

   Thierry: Right now we have 1.0.1 - could I suggest we publish
   the WDs using the same
   ... short name and take this to the Director on the transition
   to CR?

   Pierre: I think what Thierry mentioned would be a path forwards
   - proceed as we are today
   ... and have the "Amendment 1" in our back pocket and deal with
   the objection at CR, knowing
   ... that we have this fallback.

   Andreas: I don't have a big problem with Amendment 1, but I
   have seen it in MPEG specs -
   ... maybe we could understand how they use it?

   Mike: There's no real versioning in ISO, it's only done by
   amendments, corrigenda and new
   ... editions, where new editions are a roll-up of everything
   that has happened in corrigenda
   ... and amendments, and versioning is only by year. It's a
   different model fundamentally.
   ... The numbers are designators for the standard.
   ... And they are informal anyway, they're not formally part of
   the title of the document.

   Glenn: I have no problem with the holding pattern that Thierry

   Nigel: Okay let's do that then.
   ... Moving on to the liaison text I sent, were there any

   Glenn: You'd incorporated my comments about the version being
   possibly subject to change, so I was happy.

   Nigel: Thanks for the reminder, yes there was some email back
   and forth which ended, so
   ... unless there are any other comments then I'm going to take
   the last version as being okay.
   ... Now for publishing a WD for WR, there's nothing more to be
   done is there?

   Pierre: Correct there are no issues open and all the changes
   are merged.

   -> [9]https://github.com/w3c/imsc/issues/213

      [9] https://github.com/w3c/imsc/issues/213

   Pierre: Will this issue generate any significant changes?
   ... Do we just need to add a paragraph on the consequences for
   XML schema explaining that
   ... content from other namespaces are pruned before validation?

   Mike: I raised this issue. I think it is clear that the intent
   is to allow foreign attributes and
   ... What's less clear to me is if foreign namespace elements
   are permitted and ยง12.1.1 is
   ... strongly suggestive that they are not permitted on any
   elements other than tt:metadata. However I think the world was
   of the view that elements are
   ... intended to be allowed anywhere. I think rather than going
   back and trying to enforce
   ... what may have been an intent 10 years ago it is probably
   better to clarify what we believe
   ... today. At least in IMSC 1 it would be helpful to clarify
   our collective understanding, that
   ... both attributes and elements in foreign namespace elements
   are allowed everywhere.
   ... Does anyone disagree with that understanding?

   Glenn: I think it is vague in TTMl1 regarding whether the
   foreign namespace elements are
   ... pruned for other processing than validation processing. For
   validation it is clear they
   ... are to be ignored/pruned. However given the text on the
   tt:metadata element it is clear
   ... that for other kinds of processing they are to be retained.
   This is an ambiguity that needs
   ... to be addressed in TTML1 via an errata and in TTML2.

   Mike: I don't disagree with that but from an expediency point
   of view I am inclined to let
   ... this lie in TTML1, and I would rather leave that alone and
   clarify it in IMSC 1 and fix it in TTML2.

   Glenn: I think we could certainly craft an informative note
   under the section that describes the pruning
   ... process that says the pruning is for the purpose of
   validity assessment for the TTML1 spec
   ... only and does not necessarily apply to other kinds of
   processing or validity checking. That
   ... would not be a technical change.
   ... That would be in TTML1.

   Mike: I don't have a problem with that but it is not sufficient
   to avoid the ambiguity in IMSC1.

   Glenn: I would also put that into TTML2.

   Nigel: Isn't the correct place to put this fix into TTML1?
   ... Regardless of whether or not we add a statement to IMSC 1
   informatively, we should fix it in TTML1.

   Mike: The specific technical issue is that only the metadata
   element explicitly permits
   ... foreign namespace elements.

   Nigel: So explicitly permitting them in other elements would be
   a substantive technical change?

   Mike: Right.

   Pierre: The implementors of IMSC 1 are unlikely to reach the
   same conclusion without the
   ... full background. The question is can we do something in
   IMSC 1 that is helpful for
   ... implementors and that is consistent with our direction in
   TTML2 and hopefully in TTML1.

   Andreas: What would the suggestion be Mike?

   Mike: An informative note that says foreign namespace elements
   are permitted anywhere.

   Nigel: And all tt namespace children of foreign namespace
   elements would be pruned for
   ... TTML presentation too?

   Mike: Yes, if an element is pruned for validation it has to be
   pruned for presentation as well.

   Glenn: +1

   Mike: For something like smpte:image there is some confusion
   about if that is even permitted.

   Glenn: Mike seems to be suggesting that we should be explicitly
   adding foreign namespace
   ... elements to the content model of each element in TTML1, but
   I do not think that is necessary.
   ... If it is not prohibited then it is permitted.
   ... There is a sticky issue that we tried to divorce validity
   from XML concrete syntax by
   ... referring to an abstract document instance, but then we
   define the permitted attributes
   ... and elements by using XML syntax in our documents. We tried
   to have our cake and eat
   ... it too and we're having heartburn now.

   Mike: I'll put my proposal in writing somewhere on the issue
   for IMSC 1 and we can pull request
   ... it and put it to bed. I look forward to any proposals to
   address it in TTML1 also.

   Nigel: That seems like a good way forward.
   ... I will add a note to the issue now.

   Pierre: I just want to point out that making an XSD that
   reflects this will be exciting.

   Mike: A proper one would require xs:any everywhere.

   Andreas: The question is if a schema needs to contain the
   wildcard element because possibly
   ... we should validate the pruned document against the schema
   not the one with the foreign namespace elements in.

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


   Nigel: The above topic also was relevant to the TTML agenda
   item by the way.
   ... I did want to discuss the placement of TTML.next issues but
   that is not urgent for today.
   ... We have a bunch of horizontal review comments from r12a.
   Glenn are you able to deal with those?

   Glenn: I have too many other issues to cover before I get to
   those so I am going to respond
   ... later.

   Dae: The request for new features on TTML2 passed on Feb 15. So
   if the review comments
   ... ask for new features we would say no, right?

   Nigel: So far none of them do ask for new features, but yes.
   ... We're out of time so thanks everyone. [adjourns meeting]

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

   [End of minutes]

    Minutes formatted by David Booth's [10]scribe.perl version
    1.148 ([11]CVS log)
    $Date: 2017/02/23 17:12:52 $

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

     [11] 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, 23 February 2017 17:28:33 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 5 October 2017 18:24:38 UTC