W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-tt@w3.org > February 2018

Re: {minutes} TTWG Meeting 2018-02-22

From: Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2018 13:19:44 -0700
Message-ID: <CACQ=j+eWLULw-_Ypywc_Fv+RhKy_oZKxPqyH7uUequsqwPkROg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Nigel Megitt <nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk>
Cc: "public-tt@w3.org" <public-tt@w3.org>
SIL

On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 9:26 AM, Nigel Megitt <nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk>
wrote:

> Thanks for attending today's TTWG meeting. Minutes can be found in HTML
> format at https://www.w3.org/2018/02/22-tt-minutes.html
>
> Please note that I recorded the agreement to transition TTML2 to CR, and
> also separately a resolution to set the CR exit date as early as the
> Process permits, since it is likely that the exit date will need to be
> modified prior to actual publication (it is too early at the moment):
>
> *RESOLUTION: The TTWG requests transition of TTML2 to Candidate
> Recommendation.*
> *RESOLUTION: The earliest CR exit date will be 4 weeks after publication
> of the CR, i.e. the minimum permitted period.*
>
> In both these cases I will consider the review period under the group's
> Decision Policy to be Monday 5th March 2018, since they follow the call for
> consensus issued on Monday 19th February. (strictly, that call for
> consensus did not explicitly mention the CR exit date, but the document on
> which the call for consensus was based had a date of March 29, so I'm
> counting it as part of the original decision, and only made it an explicit
> separate resolution so that whoever needs to make the change knows they
> have permission to do so)
>
> I will circulate details of the *joint meeting with APA*, to be held on *Wednesday
> 28th February at 1700 UTC*, when I have them.
>
> The minutes in text format:
>
>    [1]W3C
>
>       [1] http://www.w3.org/
>
>                 Timed Text Working Group Teleconference
>
> 22 Feb 2018
>
>    See also: [2]IRC log
>
>       [2] https://www.w3.org/TR/png-hdr-pq/
>
> Attendees
>
>    Present
>           Nigel, Cyril, Mike
>
>    Regrets
>           Thierry, Pierre
>
>    Chair
>           Nigel
>
>    Scribe
>           nigel
>
> Contents
>
>      * [3]Topics
>          1. [4]This meeting
>          2. [5]TTML2 CR Transition
>          3. [6]Joint meeting with APA next week.
>          4. [7]IMSC 1.0.1 PR
>          5. [8]SMPTE liaison
>          6. [9]TTML1 3rd Ed CR
>          7. [10]Meeting close.
>      * [11]Summary of Action Items
>      * [12]Summary of Resolutions
>      __________________________________________________________
>
>    <scribe> scribe: nigel
>
> This meeting
>
>    Nigel: Today, I want to note the TTML2 CR Transition
>    resolution, plus IMSC 1.0.1 PR.
>    ... I've noticed that we owe SMPTE a liaison, so I've drafted
>    something for discussion and
>    ... sent it to the member list.
>    ... I'd like to check what we need to do for TTML1 Third Ed to
>    get to CR too.
>    ... There are a number of agenda issues on IMSC 1.1 which
>    ideally I'd cover today.
>    ... Any other business?
>
>    group: [silence]
>
> TTML2 CR Transition
>
>    Nigel: As discussed during last week's call, there were a few
>    final changes to make to TTML2
>    ... to get to a state where I could request approval to
>    transition to CR from the WG.
>    ... I did that by email on Monday and mentioned that I'd record
>    it as a resolution today.
>
>    RESOLUTION: The TTWG requests transition of TTML2 to Candidate
>    Recommendation.
>
>    Nigel: That's now recorded, however the clock started on that
>    as a decision on Monday, so
>    ... the window for objections will close on Monday 5th March
>    2018, which is 10 working days after when I sent the call for
>    Consensus.
>    ... One thing to note is that after sending that CfC we merged
>    one non-substantive change,
>    ... which was to list ipd as an at risk feature, which had
>    previously been resolved but was
>    ... accidentally omitted from the document.
>
>    Cyril: We need to change the CR exit earliest date.
>
> We will also need to make any changes required to satisfy pubrules
checking. I will create an issue and PR to handle this over the next few
days.

>
>    Nigel: That's true, we do, thank you.
>    ... I think we can leave that to staff or the webmaster, but
>    have to agree the period.
>
>    RESOLUTION: The earliest CR exit date will be 4 weeks after
>    publication of the CR, i.e. the minimum permitted period.
>
>    Nigel: Unfortunately Thierry is away until 12th March and he
>    has the action to pull together
>    ... the wide review comments, which as far as I can tell has
>    not been done yet. Those are
>    ... needed to support the transition to CR.
>    ... We potentially could do it by pointing at GitHub issues -
>    I'll check with plh if that
>    ... can work.
>    ... Alternatively anyone could pull the information together.
>
>    Cyril: Potentially that could add another week or two to our
>    publication time depending
>    ... on how quickly Thierry can do it when he gets back.
>
>    Nigel: True, I'll check with plh and get back to the group.
>
>    Cyril: Can we talk about next steps?
>    ... After CR, we have to prepare the test suite, implementation
>    reports, pull requests for
>    ... remaining editorial changes deferred to CR2.
>
>    Nigel: Plus addressing any implementation feedback that could
>    be substantive.
>
>    Cyril: How do we organise the effort to produce the test suite?
>    ... I proposed some time ago that people could provide tests
>    for features they are interested in.
>
>    Nigel: I think first we need to decide which repo to put the
>    tests in, then raise an issue
>    ... per feature, then handle the contributions as pull requests
>    which we review as normal.
>
>    Cyril: I think plh suggested at TPAC that we should use web
>    platform tests, but we cannot
>    ... do so with any javascript harness.
>
> I oppose this approach, and suggest we do what we have done for both TTML1
and IMSC1, namely, put it into the spec repository, in this case, ttml2.
Alternatively, we could create a ttml2-test-suite (or ttml2-ts if something
shorter is preferred) repository. The overhead of integrating into platform
tests is very high and few browser platforms support TTML natively in the
first place. So any utility of using the platform tests organization is
very low (or zero) compared to a significant additional burden imposed.

>
>    Nigel: I think that puts them into the class called "ref
>    tests".
>
>    Cyril: The previous test suite lacked example images for the
>    rendering. That caused some
>    ... trouble for the community that was using it. I think we
>    should put some effort into
>    ... proposing example renderings for each test.
>
>    Nigel: Yes. I'd go slightly further, which is to say we should
>    provide example (correct) output.
>    ... That's to cover validation tests, whose output is "good" or
>    "error" or "warning" etc. as well
>    ... as presentation tests.
>
> I will reject any attempt to label output images as "correct" or
"normative". The best we can do is label them as representative examples.

>
>    Cyril: In the implementation report we could include each
>    implementation's actual output.
>
> No. That has never been required.

>
>    Nigel: We don't normally do that, because it makes the report
>    too big, and it isn't required.
>    ... We can encourage implementers to share their output for our
>    use though.
>
>    Cyril: how many tests will it be?
>
>    Nigel: Not sure, could be 100-200 individual tests, depending
>    how we arrange them, and
>    ... how many new feature designators there are.
>
> At a minimum, one test per new feature designation. At present, TTML2
contains 228 defined feature designators, while TTML1 contains 114,
coincidentally, exactly half the count of TTML2. So we could potentially
have as few as 114 tests.

>
>    Cyril: I'll try to count them and do a first pass estimate.
>
> Joint meeting with APA next week.
>
>    Nigel: Reminder we have a joint meeting with APA to discuss
>    accessibility issues with IMSC
>    ... and WebVTT on Wednesday 28th February, 1700 UTC, details to
>    follow.
>
> IMSC 1.0.1 PR
>
>    Nigel: The request to transition to PR has been approved by the
>    Director, and I hope it will
>    ... be published today.
>
>    [13]IMSC 1.0.1 latest version
>
>      [13] https://www.w3.org/TR/ttml-imsc1.0.1/
>
>    Nigel: Right now that shows a CR.
>
> SMPTE liaison
>
>    Nigel: I've just sent the member list a draft text of a liaison
>    to send to SMPTE about
>    ... TTML2 and IMSC 1.1. Can we please review now?
>
>    [14]TTML2 image element
>
>      [14] https://w3c.github.io/ttml2/index.html#embedded-content-vocabulary-image
>
>    Mike: We should include a link to that in the message so they
>    don't look at the pre-CR WD.
>
>    Nigel: Good point
>
>    Mike: With the URL to the ED in there, I think that looks good.
>
>    Cyril: [makes a point about MIME type]
>
>    Nigel: OK, I think I have enough to go ahead now, thanks both.
>
> TTML1 3rd Ed CR
>
>    Nigel: I wanted to check what work remains to publish TTML1 3rd
>    Ed as a CR.
>    ... The 3rd Ed CR milestone has 5 open issues, 1 with a pr
>    open, so it looks like those need
>    ... to be addressed.
>    ... I'm unclear about the requirements for wide review for
>    transitioning from TTML1 2nd Ed Rec to TTML1 3rd Ed CR.
>    ... I'll check with staff on the transition requirements.
>    ... I'll also check the differences against TTML1 2nd Ed to see
>    if anything looks substantive.
>
>    Mike: At least in the past the process was abbreviated for a
>    new Edition.
>
>    Nigel: I think it still is, though the Process has changed
>    quite a bit since we published 2nd Ed.
>
> Meeting close.
>
>    Nigel: Thanks, that's been very useful. Reminder that our next
>    meeting is on Wednesday
>    ... next week, joint with APA, in addition to the regular
>    Thursday call. I'm expecting to
>    ... circulate joining details for the APA meeting, though
>    possibly only a day or so prior to
>    ... the meeting.
>    ... [adjourns meeting]
>
> Summary of Action Items
>
> Summary of Resolutions
>
>     1. [15]The TTWG requests transition of TTML2 to Candidate
>        Recommendation.
>     2. [16]The earliest CR exit date will be 4 weeks after
>        publication of the CR, i.e. the minimum permitted period.
>
>    [End of minutes]
>      __________________________________________________________
>
>
>     Minutes formatted by David Booth's [17]scribe.perl version
>     1.152 ([18]CVS log)
>     $Date: 2018/02/22 16:19:53 $
>
>      [17] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
>      [18] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/
>
>
Received on Thursday, 22 February 2018 20:21:09 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 22 February 2018 20:21:11 UTC