- From: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2018 15:34:47 +1000
- To: David Ronca <dronca@netflix.com>
- Cc: Nigel Megitt <nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk>, Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>, Public TTWG List <public-tt@w3.org>
FYI: I registered an issue on WebVTT for this https://github.com/w3c/webvtt/issues/435 On Tue, Apr 3, 2018 at 7:46 AM, Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com> wrote: > Excellent. That will make it easy for webvtt to pick it up. > > Thanks, > Silvia. > > On Tue., 3 Apr. 2018, 6:52 am David Ronca, <dronca@netflix.com> wrote: >> >> > ... features are natively supported in html/CSS as well? >> >> html/css support is not complete, but fairly close, and the CSS groups has >> indicated a willingness to address the missing features. We have an >> internal TTML2->CSS implementation that has been well tested and seems to >> cover JA subtitle feature set reasonably well, but not always a clean >> mapping. >> >> On Mon, Apr 2, 2018 at 1:32 PM, Silvia Pfeiffer >> <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> Hi David, >>> >>> This is amazing! Thanks for sharing that blog post. I've not been able to >>> get this much detailed information on what the requirements are around >>> subtitles in Japanese before. Did you with with the i18n group on making >>> sure all these features are natively supported in html/CSS as well? >>> >>> I think the current webvtt specification supports most of these features, >>> apart from the slanting, but we would need to do a proper assessment and >>> write proper test files. >>> >>> I'll add an issue in GitHub for it - it should be in the list for webvtt >>> v2. >>> >>> Kind regards, >>> Silvia. >>> >>> >>> On Tue., 3 Apr. 2018, 12:05 am David Ronca, <dronca@netflix.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> > defined as "essential Japanese subtitle features"? >>>> We define the essential Japanese features in this techblog, which is >>>> based on a presentation and paper that we shared with TTWG. This is based >>>> on our work to launch in Japan, and a rather large set of JA subtitle >>>> assets. >>>> >>>> On Mon, Apr 2, 2018 at 1:55 AM, Silvia Pfeiffer >>>> <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hi David, >>>>> >>>>> What I meant was that Microsoft only supports a minimal feature set >>>>> which is about as much as SRT. There's no official definition of >>>>> "minimal feature set". The other browsers support more with Chrome and >>>>> Mozilla basically everything except for scrolling regions. All Apple >>>>> implementations are close to complete. >>>>> >>>>> About ruby support: it's as good as HTML's ruby support for now. >>>>> >>>>> Counter question: what is defined as "essential Japanese subtitle >>>>> features"? >>>>> >>>>> Cheers, >>>>> Silvia. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Mon, Apr 2, 2018 at 4:33 PM, David Ronca <dronca@netflix.com> wrote: >>>>> >> because the browsers don't provide sufficient support (specifically >>>>> >> Microsoft's browsers - the others support the minimal feature set) >>>>> > >>>>> > How to reconcile this with David Singer's statement that "VTT is >>>>> > supported >>>>> > in all major browsers"? Also, the how is "minimal feature set" >>>>> > defined. >>>>> > Must be more than SRT, I expect. I am especially curious about >>>>> > WebVTT >>>>> > support for Japanese subtitles. We have not seen a WebVTT >>>>> > implementation >>>>> > that can properly the essential Japanese subtitle features. Is there >>>>> > such >>>>> > an implementation that someone can point us to? >>>>> > >>>>> > On Thu, Mar 29, 2018 at 7:55 PM, Silvia Pfeiffer >>>>> > <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com> >>>>> > wrote: >>>>> >> >>>>> >> Congratulations on the resolution for webvtt to move to CR! I'll >>>>> >> help >>>>> >> where I can. >>>>> >> >>>>> >> About the question of interest: many video player publishers had to >>>>> >> write >>>>> >> their own webvtt interpreters & renderers because the browsers don't >>>>> >> provide >>>>> >> sufficient support (specifically Microsoft's browsers - the others >>>>> >> support >>>>> >> the minimal feature set). At FOMS we consistently hear the request >>>>> >> by the >>>>> >> player vendors and content publishers who don't want to have to >>>>> >> write and >>>>> >> maintain their own captioning library but the state of >>>>> >> implementation in >>>>> >> browsers is a problem. It's a chicken and egg thing and it's my hope >>>>> >> that a >>>>> >> push for CR/REC will change that. >>>>> >> >>>>> >> I hope this helps. >>>>> >> >>>>> >> Cheers, >>>>> >> Silvia. >>>>> >> >>>>> >> On Fri., 30 Mar. 2018, 3:25 am Nigel Megitt, >>>>> >> <nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk> >>>>> >> wrote: >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> Thanks all for attending today's TTWG meeting. Minutes can be found >>>>> >>> in >>>>> >>> HTML format at https://www.w3.org/2018/03/29-tt-minutes.html >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> In text format: >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> [1]W3C >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> [1] http://www.w3.org/ >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> Timed Text Working Group Teleconference >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> 29 Mar 2018 >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> See also: [2]IRC log >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> [2] https://www.w3.org/2018/03/29-tt-irc >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> Attendees >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> Present >>>>> >>> Cyril, Pierre, Nigel, dsinger, Thierry, Philippe >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> Regrets >>>>> >>> Andreas >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> Chair >>>>> >>> Nigel >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> Scribe >>>>> >>> nigel >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> Contents >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> * [3]Topics >>>>> >>> 1. [4]This meeting >>>>> >>> 2. [5]F2F meetings >>>>> >>> 3. [6]TTML1 3rd Edition CR >>>>> >>> 4. [7]IMSC >>>>> >>> 5. [8]Update feature list per TTML2 imsc#350 >>>>> >>> 6. [9]Clarify the use of recommended character sets >>>>> >>> imsc#354 >>>>> >>> 7. [10]TTWG Charter >>>>> >>> 8. [11]WebVTT >>>>> >>> 9. [12]TTWG Charter >>>>> >>> 10. [13]Travis >>>>> >>> 11. [14]Audio Profile of TTML2 >>>>> >>> 12. [15]Meeting Close >>>>> >>> * [16]Summary of Action Items >>>>> >>> * [17]Summary of Resolutions >>>>> >>> __________________________________________________________ >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> <scribe> scribe: nigel >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> This meeting >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> Nigel: Next week I'm able to make the call, but the week after, >>>>> >>> the 12th, I can't. >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> Cyril: I also can't make the 12th. >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> Pierre: Regrets for me for the 19th. >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> Nigel: For today, we have TTWG Charter, if there's more to >>>>> >>> discuss on that - will wait for >>>>> >>> ... staff to join before confirming. >>>>> >>> ... We also have TPAC, and a possible F2F in Munich in May, >>>>> >>> ... TTML1 3rd Edition CR needs to be discussed. >>>>> >>> ... Not sure if there's anything to discuss on TTML2. >>>>> >>> ... For IMSC there is one agenda point, a pull request, which >>>>> >>> we may be able to resolve with >>>>> >>> ... a brief conversation. >>>>> >>> ... If we have time we can go through the IMSC vNext Reqs pull >>>>> >>> requests, which have been >>>>> >>> ... open for a while. >>>>> >>> ... I don't think there's anything to discuss on CSS. >>>>> >>> ... Do we have something for WebVTT? >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> David: Yes, we should approve the transition to CR. >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> Nigel: Any preferences about what order we do these in? >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> Pierre: I'd really like to close the IMSC ticket, because it is >>>>> >>> blocking CR. >>>>> >>> ... If there's anything missing on that push-back on TTML1 we >>>>> >>> should address that ASAP. >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> Nigel: We should be able to get through everything today - >>>>> >>> we're scheduled for 2 hours. >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> F2F meetings >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> Nigel: Thierry wants us to discuss if we wish to meet at TPAC >>>>> >>> in Lyon, which is at the end >>>>> >>> ... of October this year. >>>>> >>> ... I expect us to be getting towards the end of our Rec >>>>> >>> transitions for all our specs at that >>>>> >>> ... time, but I expect there will be a lot to discuss, so I >>>>> >>> propose that we ask for what we >>>>> >>> ... usually ask for, i.e. 2 days. >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> Pierre: Sounds good. >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> Nigel: Okay, I'll complete the WBS for TTWG asking for that. >>>>> >>> ... There will be a request for any groups we don't want to >>>>> >>> clash with, or want to have joint >>>>> >>> ... meetings with. I would at least propose that we ask for a >>>>> >>> joint meeting with CSS WG like >>>>> >>> ... we did last time, on the basis that we expect to have made >>>>> >>> some progress. >>>>> >>> ... Any other thoughts? >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> group: [silence] >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> Nigel: The next proposal is that we have a f2f on May 22 and >>>>> >>> 23rd at IRT in Munich. Andreas >>>>> >>> ... has kindly offered to make space available there before the >>>>> >>> IRT subtitle technology symposium, >>>>> >>> ... and I think the timing will be good to iterate over TTML2 >>>>> >>> and IMSC 1.1 tests for the test suite. >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> Cyril: I might be able to make that. >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> Pierre: It's unlikely I'd be able to make it. >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> Nigel: Okay, I'll send an email round about this; for now it is >>>>> >>> a proposal. I think if we >>>>> >>> ... intend to talk about test suites we need the right people >>>>> >>> in attendance. >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> TTML1 3rd Edition CR >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> Nigel: We submitted the transition request to CR for TTML1 >>>>> >>> Third Edition and Ralph >>>>> >>> ... responded expressing surprise that no new tests have been >>>>> >>> created to verify that implementations >>>>> >>> ... conform to the clarifications and error corrections. He >>>>> >>> asked if the test suite has been >>>>> >>> ... updated at all. He's basically asking us to update the test >>>>> >>> suite to demonstrate it. >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> Pierre: I think it only needs to be updated selectively to >>>>> >>> cover the areas changed. >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> Nigel: I think that's right. >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> Pierre: I think that's possible to do. >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> Nigel: I think if we're claiming that implementations meet the >>>>> >>> updates already then we need >>>>> >>> ... to provide evidence. >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> Pierre: My recommendation is to change the SOTD to include exit >>>>> >>> criteria that require >>>>> >>> ... passing tests, and then create those test suites. >>>>> >>> Alternatively I could provide GitHub >>>>> >>> ... pointers to issues on imsc.js, but that might be a lot of >>>>> >>> work with no guarantee of success. >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> Nigel: That would work. >>>>> >>> ... If we're going to do that we need to make the updates and >>>>> >>> re-file the transition request. >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> Pierre: I'll make the SOTD updates. >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> Nigel: When that's done, please let me and Thierry know so >>>>> >>> Thierry can update the transition request. >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> IMSC >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> Nigel: we have one pull request on the agenda. >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> Update feature list per TTML2 imsc#350 >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> github: [18]https://github.com/w3c/imsc/pull/350 >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> [18] https://github.com/w3c/imsc/pull/350 >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> Nigel: I think the main issue here is the syntax permitted for >>>>> >>> tts:extent. >>>>> >>> ... I don't understand why the `auto` value is permitted for >>>>> >>> `tts:extent` on `tt:tt`... >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> Pierre: It was permitted before. >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> Nigel: But has its meaning changed? It used to be defined as >>>>> >>> the Root Container Region, >>>>> >>> ... now it is defined as "contains" whose meaning is defined by >>>>> >>> appendix H. >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> Pierre: When I went through this before I decided that >>>>> >>> "contains" ends up meaning the same >>>>> >>> ... as "auto" used to mean in TTML1 - it yielded the right >>>>> >>> outcome. >>>>> >>> ... Note that in IMSC pixelAspectRatio is prohibited, so >>>>> >>> "contains" resolves as the display >>>>> >>> ... aspect ratio of the root container region. >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> Cyril: And the algorithm in H.1 and H.2 match? >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> Pierre: Yes, if there's no DAR and PAR then it's H.1.1 which >>>>> >>> corresponds to TTML1 100% 100%, >>>>> >>> ... i.e. auto semantics. >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> Nigel: So Pierre you're arguing that contain and auto resolve >>>>> >>> to the same so it is better to >>>>> >>> ... have a single syntax option rather than allow the >>>>> >>> semantically more precise "contain"? >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> Pierre: Yes. >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> Cyril: There may be cases where auto and contain resolve >>>>> >>> differently? >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> Pierre: Outside the tt element, maybe, but on the tt element >>>>> >>> they are identical. >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> Cyril: Yes, the spec says if the value is auto, and its the tt >>>>> >>> element, then it maps to contain. >>>>> >>> ... So they are equivalent. >>>>> >>> ... I think the constraint on IMSC is correct. >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> Nigel: Okay, I'm persuaded. >>>>> >>> ... The next comment here is about extends and restricts. >>>>> >>> Pierre commented that >>>>> >>> ... there's no requirement for them, and presumably there's no >>>>> >>> benefit identified for them here? >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> Pierre: No, I have not. >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> Nigel: I can see that from an implementation perspective it may >>>>> >>> add a fair amount of code >>>>> >>> ... and tests to allow extends and restricts. >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> Pierre: Also this new TTML2 syntax was not broken out as a >>>>> >>> specific feature designator. >>>>> >>> ... I think I raised an issue on TTML2 for that. >>>>> >>> ... Maybe later it will be made a feature and we can then >>>>> >>> refactor this text. >>>>> >>> ... It would be a lot clearer. >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> Nigel: Ok, there are conflicts here but I'm happy to approve >>>>> >>> the changes. >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> SUMMARY: @nigelmegitt to approve the pull request >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> Pierre: The conflicts are super-boring, I'll fix those. >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> github-bot, end topic >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> Clarify the use of recommended character sets imsc#354 >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> github: [19]https://github.com/w3c/imsc/pull/354 >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> [19] https://github.com/w3c/imsc/pull/354 >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> Nigel: You're waiting on someone from i18n on this, Pierre? >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> Pierre: Yes, during the call people used the term "safe" but >>>>> >>> the comments were against that. >>>>> >>> ... Instead, I've proposed to use "common" and am waiting for a >>>>> >>> response on that. >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> Nigel: That change was made on the pull request, but there's no >>>>> >>> comment about it, but >>>>> >>> ... there is on the issue? >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> Pierre: Oh yes, I could prompt Addison to review with a comment >>>>> >>> on the pull request. I'll just do that. >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> Nigel: I'm not sure what we can do more on this at the moment. >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> Pierre: It is only a matter of finding the right terminology >>>>> >>> now, I think we're good on the rest. >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> Nigel: Looks that way. >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> SUMMARY: WG awaiting review feedback from i18n. >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> Pierre: We should communicate to them that we plan to request >>>>> >>> transition to CR in 7 days >>>>> >>> ... so they need to come back soon if they have a strong >>>>> >>> concern. >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> Nigel: That sounds like an action for me to send a message >>>>> >>> immediately after this meeting. >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> github-bot, end topic >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> TTWG Charter >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> Thierry: Not much to discuss - I have submitted the draft >>>>> >>> charter to W3M, and I think they >>>>> >>> ... were supposed to review it yesterday but I have nothing to >>>>> >>> report yet. >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> WebVTT >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> <scribe> Chair: David >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> David: At TPAC we looked at the transition request, and the >>>>> >>> actions requested have been >>>>> >>> ... done. We were waiting on closing out some issues on the >>>>> >>> spec which Nigel was unable >>>>> >>> ... to get to for the first few weeks of this year. My feeling >>>>> >>> is that the remaining issues can >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> <dsinger> >>>>> >>> [20]https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tt/2018Mar/0133 >>>>> >>> .html >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> [20] >>>>> >>> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tt/2018Mar/0133.html >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> David: be closed off in CR. I would like to ask for the formal >>>>> >>> agreement of the group to do >>>>> >>> ... the final transition. I sent the final draft of the request >>>>> >>> a couple of days ago. >>>>> >>> ... I updated the wide review page a couple of days ago to >>>>> >>> reflect the current status. I hope >>>>> >>> ... we're at the formal stages now - we had the [scribe loses >>>>> >>> track] >>>>> >>> ... There will likely be some changes to be made during CR, >>>>> >>> which are not major changes >>>>> >>> ... for implementors but may for example require a change to >>>>> >>> the computed CSS property value for something. >>>>> >>> ... I think we need an updated version of the spec with SOTD >>>>> >>> etc for CR, which Silvia and/or >>>>> >>> ... Thierry can do. >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> <dsinger> The remaining edits are clarification, warning, and >>>>> >>> so on and don’t represent technical changes to the >>>>> >>> specification, so I think it’s safe to do them along with any >>>>> >>> other disambiguations needed by implementers during CR. >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> Nigel: What I normally do at this point is ask Thierry what is >>>>> >>> needed now for the transition request? >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> Thierry: For the SOTD there are a few things that need to be >>>>> >>> put in, first the exit criteria. >>>>> >>> ... From David's statement, that is like what we have been >>>>> >>> using within this group, 2 implementations >>>>> >>> ... for each feature, so that sound good. >>>>> >>> ... The second thing I have not seen are the features at risk, >>>>> >>> because there are some features >>>>> >>> ... that are not implemented like regions and some others. >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> David: We discussed this, it's at the end of point 1, and as >>>>> >>> discussed, we don't want to drop >>>>> >>> ... them so we aren't marking them as at risk. They are not >>>>> >>> features to drop if they are not >>>>> >>> ... implemented. The group wanted to wait until they're >>>>> >>> implemented, and have no features at risk. >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> Thierry: Okay. Another thing is for the test suite and the >>>>> >>> implementation report. Of course >>>>> >>> ... we have to fill the implementation report in later. We >>>>> >>> should have a link to a test suite >>>>> >>> ... or something if it is incomplete. >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> David: Yes, that's also in the transition request, there's a >>>>> >>> fairly thorough test suite in >>>>> >>> ... web platform tests, which generates automated reports for >>>>> >>> browsers, and we're going to >>>>> >>> ... have work out how to do that for non-browser >>>>> >>> implementations during CR. That's for >>>>> >>> ... me and the group to do during CR. >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> Nigel: We don't normally ask for that at this stage? >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> Thierry: We don't need the whole thing, just a link to whatever >>>>> >>> is there. >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> David: We believe it is pretty thorough at this point, I'm sure >>>>> >>> there are bugs that people will >>>>> >>> ... find during implementation work. >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> Thierry: The last bit is the wide review, I guess it is done, >>>>> >>> we have a URI, and it will be up >>>>> >>> ... to the Director to review it. >>>>> >>> ... The last thing is WG approval for transitioning. >>>>> >>> ... I need a link to point to. >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> PROPOSAL: Agree to the CR transition to WebVTT >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> Pierre: For clarity, that's based on the gh-pages branch on >>>>> >>> GitHub? >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> David: Yes, that's correct, Silvia will need to update that. >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> Pierre: And all the licence and IPR issues have been addressed >>>>> >>> and there's not going to be >>>>> >>> ... any drama there? >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> David: I don't think so, no exclusions have been filed so far >>>>> >>> and we asked for FSA from all >>>>> >>> ... the CG contributors. >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> Pierre: And some of the contributions have been from the CG >>>>> >>> since then, or all from members of the WG? >>>>> >>> ... (after that commitment was received) >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> David: Even if they came from the CG they did sign a CLA. The >>>>> >>> only issue would be if they >>>>> >>> ... contributed someone else's IPR and that's a door I don't >>>>> >>> know how to close. There's nothing >>>>> >>> ... that's giving me any anxiety. >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> Pierre: So the next step is to create a CR branch for the group >>>>> >>> to review the final version. >>>>> >>> ... When will that be available? >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> David: You'd like a formal branch in GitHub? >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> Pierre: Normally that's what happens, so there's a formal >>>>> >>> document to review. >>>>> >>> ... I'm encouraging you to do this as soon as possible so there >>>>> >>> aren't any surprises? >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> David: I'll see what we can do - is there anyone on the team >>>>> >>> who can help? >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> Thierry: I can help on the SOTD of course. >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> Pierre: I don't have any a priori objections, thank you for >>>>> >>> doing all this additional work. >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> Nigel: I'd second Pierre's request, let's have the actual >>>>> >>> document that we are going to approve on the table. >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> Thierry: It has to be a CR version for approval by the >>>>> >>> Director. >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> Pierre: And to be clear, on the open issues you do not expect >>>>> >>> any formal objections? >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> David: I'm not seeing any clouds on the horizon for the >>>>> >>> remaining issues. >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> Nigel: Me neither. >>>>> >>> ... David, you've been clear that you have limited resource for >>>>> >>> chairing and editing. Will there >>>>> >>> ... be the effort available to make any changes and to work on >>>>> >>> it post-CR so that it can get >>>>> >>> ... to Rec? My concern is that it could linger in CR forever. >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> <dsinger> PROPOSAL: The editor and the team to prepare the CR. >>>>> >>> The WG approves the CR transition, with said prepared CR to be >>>>> >>> presented to the Director for approval, using the transition >>>>> >>> request in >>>>> >>> [21]https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tt/2018Mar/0133 >>>>> >>> .html >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> [21] >>>>> >>> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tt/2018Mar/0133.html >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> David: I share your antipathy to specs staying in CR >>>>> >>> indefinitely, I would suggest that if >>>>> >>> ... we cannot get to Rec within the next Charter period then at >>>>> >>> that point we publish the >>>>> >>> ... spec as a Note and stop working on it in the WG. >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> Nigel: Thank you, by time-boxing the CR that addresses my >>>>> >>> concern. >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> Pierre: I think you can confidently create a CR ready spec and >>>>> >>> state a resolution to proceed >>>>> >>> ... with CR with this draft, intended to be the CR. >>>>> >>> ... Then there's no surprise. Otherwise we could take a >>>>> >>> resolution today, and in 2 weeks there's >>>>> >>> ... something objectionable to someone and then we restart the >>>>> >>> clock in 2 weeks. >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> David: I was expecting the group to approve transition today. >>>>> >>> Thierry, can you prepare the >>>>> >>> ... CR version of the document today? >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> <dsinger> Can Thierry do the pull request for the SOTD section >>>>> >>> in the next 24 hours? >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> Thierry: I can work on it, and probably not in the next 2 >>>>> >>> hours, but tomorrow morning. >>>>> >>> ... We also need in the SOTD the date for earliest advancement >>>>> >>> beyond CR. Probably we can >>>>> >>> ... put 3 months or whatever. >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> Nigel: Good point. >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> Thierry: I propose at least 2 months. >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> David: It's not going to happen for at least 6 months. We need >>>>> >>> implementations of the changes >>>>> >>> ... and of regions. Give it 6 months. >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> Thierry: You don't need to do that, you can do it in 3 if those >>>>> >>> criteria are met. >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> David: Okay, put 3 months then, that's fine. >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> Philippe: Hello, I apologise for arriving late. >>>>> >>> ... I don't mean to derail this meeting, but I have one >>>>> >>> question. We have not started review >>>>> >>> ... of the TTWG charter already, but I have one question: How >>>>> >>> is WebVTT used on the web >>>>> >>> ... today? Not an implementation question, a usage question. Is >>>>> >>> it actually used on the web, >>>>> >>> ... or only as an input format so video services can do their >>>>> >>> own thing with captions. >>>>> >>> ... TTML is used as an input format, and then there's client >>>>> >>> side JS that takes that and displays >>>>> >>> ... the subtitles and captions at the right time. YouTube, >>>>> >>> Netflix and others don't use TTML or WebVTT, >>>>> >>> ... they use their own code to present the captions. >>>>> >>> ... So you don't need native implementation of captions. >>>>> >>> ... The second question is how are we going to be able to get >>>>> >>> out of CR for WebVTT? >>>>> >>> ... If my assumption is correct, there is no incentive for >>>>> >>> browser implementers to update >>>>> >>> ... their implementations. That's part of the questions that we >>>>> >>> are asking ourselves generally >>>>> >>> ... about the future of captions on the web. >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> David: I agree a lot of captions are done with polyfills and >>>>> >>> HTML/CSS created on the fly. >>>>> >>> ... One of the issues with WebVTT is that it is not used for >>>>> >>> presentation. >>>>> >>> ... I do know that in [apple products] we take the WebVTT >>>>> >>> natively. [sorry, scribe subject to a lot of local background >>>>> >>> noise] >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> Philippe: Ok, I didn't find any statistics, for example in >>>>> >>> Chrome, of how often the native >>>>> >>> ... implementations are used today. >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> David: Okay, I'll try to find out. >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> Philippe: The fear is that it is not used so we will never get >>>>> >>> to the top of the priority list for browsers. >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> David: I share your concern, if you can do an adequate job with >>>>> >>> polyfills then who needs to >>>>> >>> ... do a native implementation. >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> Philippe: Yes, that doesn't undermine it as an input format. >>>>> >>> ... For example I do not know if the WebVTT implementation >>>>> >>> natively would allow positioning >>>>> >>> ... of captions on the fly like YouTube allows. >>>>> >>> ... We may be chasing something that the market out there is >>>>> >>> not interested in having in terms >>>>> >>> ... of native implementation. >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> David: Right. Yes. >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> Nigel: In terms of resolutions, I think the next steps are to >>>>> >>> produce the CR version of the >>>>> >>> ... document and then for David as Chair to send a message to >>>>> >>> the group specifying the >>>>> >>> ... resolution that he believes has been made, and highlighting >>>>> >>> the review period under the >>>>> >>> ... group charter decision policy (which is 10 working days). >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> Philippe: At the moment we could try to run the transition >>>>> >>> request in parallel as long as it >>>>> >>> ... is clear to the Director that there is an opportunity for >>>>> >>> the decision to be reversed. >>>>> >>> ... On the IPR question, if there's a question about CG/WG >>>>> >>> working, here it is the same >>>>> >>> ... as if a contribution comes in on the WG public mailing >>>>> >>> list, where we have to figure out >>>>> >>> ... how substantive the contribution is and address that. It >>>>> >>> doesn't change the risk >>>>> >>> ... associated with IPR in the spec that is not directly from a >>>>> >>> contributor. If you have concerns >>>>> >>> ... about that then we can engage with our legal team here and >>>>> >>> make an assessment. >>>>> >>> ... If you tell us that everyone who contributed is in the CG >>>>> >>> and the WG then we don't have >>>>> >>> ... an issue. >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> TTWG Charter >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> Philippe: A comment - the agreement you described before is >>>>> >>> that if you do not have Rec >>>>> >>> ... of WebVTT by the end of the next Charter then you would >>>>> >>> drop it. If the theory is correct >>>>> >>> ... that WebVTT is used as an input format rather than a native >>>>> >>> implementation then it would >>>>> >>> ... be no surprise if that happens. >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> David: One question is if you would accept two implementations >>>>> >>> from Apple as being >>>>> >>> ... independent, because this is in fact the case. >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> Philippe: Interesting question, I don't know the answer but I >>>>> >>> can ask and get back to you. >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> Nigel: I have asked this recently, as an issue on the Process. >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> Philippe: Yes, you would need to have some evidence that the >>>>> >>> two teams creating the implementations >>>>> >>> ... did so by interpreting the specification directly without >>>>> >>> any other communication. >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> Nigel: Any other questions or comments on the Charter? >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> Philippe: Not as far as I know. Thank you by the way for >>>>> >>> providing the draft Charter. >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> Travis >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> Philippe: I'm in communication with Travis to try to make the >>>>> >>> pull request smoother. >>>>> >>> ... I do not know why the repositories have been deactivated. >>>>> >>> We are reaching peaks of 60 concurrent >>>>> >>> ... jobs on travis at the moment and it keeps increasing. They >>>>> >>> are doing some of our jobs >>>>> >>> ... in batches and they can get delayed before they are even >>>>> >>> started. So there's both a delay >>>>> >>> ... and then a long queue before they run. So the plan is to >>>>> >>> conduct an experiment on travis >>>>> >>> ... to give them a bit of money to provide small guarantees and >>>>> >>> see how it affects our jobs >>>>> >>> ... being run. In parallel I've been talking to the web >>>>> >>> platform tests people because they are >>>>> >>> ... consuming more than half our jobs, just for testing >>>>> >>> purposes, and we cannot separate >>>>> >>> ... them because they are on the same organisation on GitHub. >>>>> >>> We're potentially considering >>>>> >>> ... moving them to a "separate" organisation on GitHub because >>>>> >>> that project is going to >>>>> >>> ... grow more and more. Then we can separate testing from >>>>> >>> production of recommendations >>>>> >>> ... more easily. Every time a pull request on WPT is done it >>>>> >>> triggers 12 concurrent jobs. >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> Nigel: Thanks for that. >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> Audio Profile of TTML2 >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> Nigel: I've been in discussion with various organisations >>>>> >>> (we're up to 12 right now) about >>>>> >>> ... setting up a CG to produce a profile of TTML2 for audio >>>>> >>> description, and hope that will >>>>> >>> ... go ahead in the next few weeks. >>>>> >>> ... Just noting it here in case people want to join. >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> Pierre: That's in a CG not the WG? >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> Nigel: Yes, and hopefully bring it to a future iteration of the >>>>> >>> TTWG Charter when there is >>>>> >>> ... a document to work on. This is partly about WG mechanics - >>>>> >>> getting onto the Charter >>>>> >>> ... without a document as the basis of a specification seems >>>>> >>> harder these days, so this way >>>>> >>> ... we can have easy participation from the interested parties >>>>> >>> and then there's a path towards >>>>> >>> ... getting to Rec later, albeit one that requires more W3C >>>>> >>> membership in the case that the >>>>> >>> ... contributors are not currently members. >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> Pierre: And the domain is all applications? >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> Nigel: Yes, not only broadcast, also web, and not making any >>>>> >>> assumptions about where in >>>>> >>> ... the distribution chain any audio mixing might happen. >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> Pierre: Thanks. >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> David: What I did with WebVTT is I got a FSA signed by the CG >>>>> >>> participants - if you're >>>>> >>> ... expecting them to give IPR away for free then they don't >>>>> >>> get anything back. >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> Nigel: Right, and I've highlighted this to the participants >>>>> >>> right from the beginning. >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> David: It took me months to get this for WebVTT. >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> Pierre: Yes, when the legal team looks at it things could take >>>>> >>> longer. >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> Meeting Close >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> Nigel: Thanks everyone! [adjourns meeting] >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> Summary of Action Items >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> Summary of Resolutions >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> [End of minutes] >>>>> >>> __________________________________________________________ >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> Minutes formatted by David Booth's [22]scribe.perl version >>>>> >>> 1.152 ([23]CVS log) >>>>> >>> $Date: 2018/03/29 16:23:30 $ >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> [22] >>>>> >>> http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm >>>>> >>> [23] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/ >>>>> >>> >>>>> > >>>> >>>> >> >
Received on Tuesday, 3 April 2018 05:35:36 UTC