{minutes} TTWG Meeting 2018-06-07

Thanks all for attending today's TTWG meeting. Minutes can be found in HTML format at https://www.w3.org/2018/06/07-tt-minutes.html


In text format:


   [1]W3C

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


                Timed Text Working Group Teleconference

07 Jun 2018

   See also: [2]IRC log

      [2] https://www.w3.org/2018/06/07-tt-irc


Attendees

   Present
          Nigel, Cyril, Pierre, Glenn

   Regrets
          Andreas, Thierry

   Chair
          Nigel

   Scribe
          nigel

Contents

     * [3]Topics
         1. [4]This meeting
         2. [5]Update requirements for claim of document (content)
            compliance (#495). ttml2#651
         3. [6]Resolve confusion between default and implicit
            (#590). ttml2#652
         4. [7]Add features for standard and high dynamic range
            PNG images (#694, #6… ttml2#770
         5. [8]tts:rubyReserve length component semantics
            ttml2#779
         6. [9]Add tts:lineShear and tts:shear style attributes
            (#784). ttml2#807
         7. [10]Further refinement of features (#814). ttml2#815
         8. [11]TTML2 Pull Request early merges
         9. [12]Meeting Close
     * [13]Summary of Action Items
     * [14]Summary of Resolutions
     __________________________________________________________

   <scribe> scribe: nigel

This meeting

   Nigel: For today I think we mainly will focus on TTML2 - there
   are a few marked for the agenda, which we need to close off
   ... today if we possibly can.
   ... There has been activity on IMSC too - anything to discuss
   there today?

   Pierre: It's not urgent so can wait in the light of other
   things.

   Nigel: Is there any other business that isn't TTML2, or
   particular points to mention?

   group: [silence]

   Nigel: Okay let's dive into TTML2 issues and pull requests.

   [15]Agenda topics for TTML2

     [15] https://github.com/w3c/ttml2/labels/agenda


Update requirements for claim of document (content) compliance
(#495). ttml2#651

   github: [16]https://github.com/w3c/ttml2/pull/651


     [16] https://github.com/w3c/ttml2/pull/651


   Glenn: TTML1 didn't have content profiles and referred to an
   abstract document type. So it uses the profile attribute to
   ... drive.

   Nigel: This is different. Oh wait, maybe it isn't. [thinks
   again]

   Glenn: The portion in item 2 of the claims section is already
   in TTML1 regarding the ttp:profile attribute. Here we just
   added
   ... the ttp:processorProfiles attribute and made a reference to
   effective processor profiles.

   Nigel: Ok I think I may have been misreading this.

   Glenn: The goal of this as pointed out by Pierre is to address
   the fact that it did not take into account the new profile
   mechanism.

   Nigel: Okay I see we are not talking about processor
   conformance claims at all, just about document conformance, and
   all
   ... that is required is to associate it with a content profile
   or a processor profile.
   ... OK you've persuaded me, I'll approve this one. Apologies
   the delay.

   SUMMARY: @nigelmegitt to approve changes

   github-bot, end topic

   Nigel: Pierre was requested to review - are you okay for us to
   go ahead with this?

   Pierre: Yes, no objection.

Resolve confusion between default and implicit (#590). ttml2#652

   github: [17]https://github.com/w3c/ttml2/pull/652


     [17] https://github.com/w3c/ttml2/pull/652


   Glenn: It's good to remind ourselves that the reason for this
   issue in the pull request is that some time ago we added a note
   ... because a point was made that nowhere did we say anything
   about the default value for begin. When we got into the long
   ... discussion about timelines and so forth that you initiated
   Nigel that came out of the discussion. But the language of the
   ... note had some language "a default (implicit) value" and
   someone asked about the (implicit) and it was clear that it
   could
   ... confuse the reader since SMIL mentions implicit, so we took
   out the implicit and tweaked the wording to make it more clear
   ... that it was specifying a default value a bit like in a DTD.
   We could have everywhere we put begin, in the element
   information
   ... item syntax, specified a default value that would be
   compatible with the other places we've done that for attributes
   but
   ... we didn't do that, probably because SVG and SMIL didn't do
   it, they built the default into their processor. That was the
   only
   ... real intent of this. Then Nigel pointed out that the value
   0 is not syntactically correct and it needs to be something
   like 0s
   ... so we made that change. The current text, if you look at
   the ED today, the paragraph already says the semantics of the
   ... begin attribute are defined by [SMIL 3.0] §5.4.3 ... so we
   already define that. In the note we lead off with "As defined
   by
   ... [SMIL 3.0] ... " which is not inconsistent. The most recent
   suggestion by @palemieux to refer to SMIL when no begin
   ... attribute is specified merely repeats what was in the
   previous normative paragraph although it focuses on "when no
   begin
   ... attribute" but we've already said that those semantics
   apply. In my mind it does not clarify for the reader what the
   default
   ... value is without considering the interpretation of the
   semantics of that value. I carefully wrote the note to avoid
   saying
   ... anything about what the semantics of the default value are.
   For such a simple change of a non-normative note we have
   ... spent a lot of energy on that one. The no-op is to do
   nothing and leave the note as is with the word (implicit) in
   and with
   ... the value of 0 without the s on it. We should at least
   clarify that because if you follow through what the SMIL
   document
   ... says you would eventually get a value of 0 which is not
   compatible. At a minimum we need to say something but we could
   ... go ahead and merge as is.

   Pierre: My take on this is driven by the many hours spent
   trying to understand how TTML and SMIL work together. There is
   ... already a sentence in SMIL that says that children of a par
   begin equivalent to 0 seconds.

   Glenn: SMIL is inconsistent there.

   Pierre: It's a note in SMIL 3. I would either just point to
   that note, or copy it verbatim. I would not try to reinvent
   things here.

   Glenn: Why does SMIL say in the normative text 0 and then have
   a note that says 0s?

   Pierre: I don't know. My encouragement is to copy and paste the
   informative note that we like in SMIL because then we're
   ... consistent with SMIL and don't invent a third way.

   Glenn: Do you think what's proposed here is inconsistent with
   SMIL 3?

   Pierre: What I don't like is the notion of a default value,
   which is not a defined term in SMIL. There's no default as far
   as I can tell.

   Glenn: The text in §5.4.4 defines the default value.

   [18]SMIL3 definition of default for begin

     [18] https://www.w3.org/TR/2008/REC-SMIL3-20081201/smil-timing.html#Timing-ParSyntax


   Pierre: I think this is really unfortunate. We should copy the
   informative note that says what we want.

   Glenn: I think the note says what we want and is not
   inconsistent with SMIL in that it does not override the
   semantics of SMIL.
   ... It does the job for the reader. I noted a while ago that it
   requires the reader to chase down text in SMIL 3 - even you
   [pierre]
   ... hadn't found that yet.
   ... [summarises
   [19]https://github.com/w3c/ttml2/pull/652#issuecomment-39528825

   0]
   ... The point of this was to help out the reader not to make
   them do this chasing and miss information.

     [19] https://github.com/w3c/ttml2/pull/652#issuecomment-395288250


   Pierre: The issue is that saying the default value is 0s is not
   the full story.

   Glenn: Of course, and that's why I don't want to paraphrase
   what it means to say 0s.

   Pierre: I think the note is unhelpful.

   Nigel: Is it misleading or wrong?

   Pierre: It oversimplifies something that's a lot more complex.
   ... Clearly removing (implicit) corrected the defect in the
   ticket, so that's essential.

   Glenn: Right, and the second change was to change 0 to 0s after
   Nigel noted that it was inconsistent with TTML.

   Pierre: I think it's a bad note.

   Nigel: I'm hearing that it corrects the defect but that
   Pierre's concern is that it doesn't direct the reader to see
   that there's more
   ... to it than just the default value.

   Pierre: Right, I don't want to paraphrase what SMIL already
   says.
   ... I don't want to change the normative text. If nobody else
   thinks its a bad note then go ahead.
   ... I'll remove my review that blocks this.

   SUMMARY: Pull request resolves the defects in the issue, so
   proceeding. Concern registered that the note may not direct the
   reader to the full complexities, however they are normatively
   present.

   github-bot, end topic

Add features for standard and high dynamic range PNG images (#694,
#6… ttml2#770

   github: [20]https://github.com/w3c/ttml2/pull/770


     [20] https://github.com/w3c/ttml2/pull/770


   Nigel: #796 has pull #810 open with two approvals and no
   changes requested so for the purpose of discussion I think it
   ... can be considered resolved.
   ... That pull request modifies the behaviour of luminanceGain.

   Glenn: The only issue in my mind at this point is if we can
   refer to a WG note normatively.

   Nigel: We simply don't need to.
   ... There's an ITU ref for HDR.

   Pierre: This is for HDR PNG.
   ... My suggestion is we split into two.

   Nigel: luminanceGain does not need PNG

   Pierre: That's why I don't mind pushing the png hdr feature
   into a separate pull request that may not be approved in time.

   Glenn: If we're going to make the decision to take out the
   feature we should close the issue.

   Pierre: I can take the action item to reach out to Mike to see
   how to make progress on #695. In the meantime
   ... we can close #694.

   Glenn: Okay so I will just remove the aspects of this pull
   request that deal with #695 and comment it in the notes of the
   pull
   ... request. Then we should be able to approve that right away
   I hope?

   Pierre: The PNG part, absolutely.

   Glenn: Then we can consider whether to close #695 without
   further action separately.

   Pierre: That's what I'm proposing.

   Glenn: I'm fine with that.
   ... I want to wrap up #695 in the next day or two.

   Pierre: We're waiting to hear back from @plhegar

   Glenn: The issue is do we want the feature at all.

   Pierre: Mike Dolan wants one, and I think it's in use today so
   it would be useful.

   Glenn: I think so, and it's in IMSC 1.1, right?

   Pierre: Just informatively.

   Glenn: Maybe it is in the requirements document for IMSC vNext.

   Pierre: I don't know, I can follow up with Mike and others
   possibly regardless in a sense of what Philippe comes back
   with.
   ... Maybe there's a way to mention it informatively. We can
   close #694 today.

   Glenn: Okay I have to do a little work but I can do that right
   away after the meeting.

   Nigel: +1 to this suggestion from me.
   ... Objections to closing #694 with this pull request and
   dealing with #695 separately?

   RESOLUTION: Modify this pull request to deal with #694 only.

   github-bot, end topic

tts:rubyReserve length component semantics ttml2#779

   github: [21]https://github.com/w3c/ttml2/issues/779


     [21] https://github.com/w3c/ttml2/issues/779


   Glenn: We don't have a pull request for this issue. The
   lingering question from Pierre is how does an author come up
   with
   ... a value for length in rubyReserve. I pointed out that in my
   opinion it is the same issue with a length for lineHeight, and
   ... if you do specify a length then the language is clear and
   the implementation aspects are clear for what that means. I
   don't
   ... believe there's any substantive issue in using an actual
   length value there.
   ... Then Nigel had a follow-on comment to Pierre earlier today.

   Pierre: On the first point I think it is different than
   lineHeight because lineHeight does not set the inter-line
   distance, as we
   ... have discussed many times before, whereas this sets a hard
   value.

   Cyril: About the fact that lineHeight does not set the
   inter-line distance, is that agreed?

   Glenn: It goes to the definition of per-inline-height-rectangle
   in the section on line areas in XSL and whether or not one
   ... increases the line height on a per line basis if something
   is larger than the line height value. If you look at the way
   that
   ... line height is implemented in browsers, if you do specify a
   line height then it sets it only once so it is the inter-line
   distance
   ... effectively.

   Pierre: That's not my experience with ruby, the line height
   changes.

   Cyril: In Burlingame @fantasai said that you have to increase
   the line height because CSS does not do that.

   Pierre: Not in Firefox.

   Cyril: If you don't specify lineHeight then the distance
   between lines is implementation-dependent, right?

   Glenn: We have an algorithm in lineHeight for computing the
   nominal inline rectangle height associated with every line,
   then
   ... on top of that you have the application of the line
   stacking strategy that we say applies in the flow
   transformation section,
   ... which says per-inline-height and XSL says that translates
   to what CSS does and I believe that's true although some
   implementations
   ... of CSS might not follow that exactly. Some things are
   implementation dependent but it depends what version of CSS you
   ... look at. Going back to CSS2 there was discussion of how you
   discuss the nominal inline height rectangle based on the
   ... paragraph and the font metrics from the list of font
   families that you resolve to. That text from 1998 has been
   progressively
   ... elaborated and extended to make it more clear. The latest
   CSS 2.2 ED is much closer to what is more carefully articulated
   ... in XSL so if anything it is getting closer to XSL not
   further away.
   ... That doesn't mean that implementations are consistent in
   this matter. Even putting ruby aside, which is not really
   specced
   ... out and there's not much in the way of implementations,
   there are still differences in how CSS browsers like Chrome vs
   ... Firefox are handling the most simple aspects of lineHeight.
   ... There's still more variation in terms of CSS
   implementations.

   Nigel: Rewinding the stack, Cyril are you clear?

   Cyril: As much as I'm going to be.

   Pierre: My second point was already covered. If ultimately the
   only way to do this is to specify an absolute additional space,
   ... (the value "normal" should be left completely to
   implementations because right now the computed length is
   related to the
   ... used line height value and that's not available in a CSS
   implementation where line-height is normal)

   Glenn: One solution would be to say that if the length is not
   specified in rubyReserve then it is implementation dependent.

   Pierre: That would address my second point. I'd like to go back
   to the first point and see if we can think of a way to
   ... help the user.
   ... When there's an explicit length, I'm trying to avoid having
   the author need to play with values until it "kind of works".

   Glenn: Don't you have to do the same for lineHeight?

   Pierre: Most authors use "normal" and are happy with what they
   get - it "just looks good", literally.

   Nigel: Can we stick to rubyReserve for now - the fact there may
   be a problem with lineHeight too is separate.

   Pierre: Can we think of a better way of doing this?

   Glenn: I don't mind but after TTML2

   Pierre: This is going to be a real obstacle for authors.

   Glenn: I understand about dealing with length when it is
   explicitly specified, from a CSS perspective, but TTPE just
   increases
   ... the line height above or below by the specified amount,
   depending. You have to take into account the ascender and
   descender
   ... and half-leading for the inline areas. It's easy to figure
   out the maximum and add it above for ascenders and below for
   descenders.

   Pierre: you can't do that in CSS

   Glenn: I agree we have specced out things that can't be done
   easily or at all in CSS. That's a different issue.

   Pierre: It's an important data point - if it can't be mapped to
   CSS then it won't be used.
   ... There are other features that are painful to implement but
   can be done. This here just can't be done.

   Nigel: Do we need to support it, in which case we need an issue
   on CSS, or does CSS do it a different way that we should
   ... adopt?

   Pierre: CSS doesn't consider this, the only suggestion is to
   reserve space by increasing the line height. CSS does not have
   ... anything resembling rubyReserve.

   Glenn: If you can divide your paragraph into multiple lines
   like you are already doing [in imsc.js]...

   Pierre: That's different lines not different paragraphs.

   Glenn: I think you can implement this in CSS by doing line
   breaking then you divide into multiple paragraphs CSS-wise and
   ... specify the line-height on each of those differently for
   rubyReserve.

   Pierre: You can't set above or below.

   Cyril: Yes you'd have to change the baseline alignment also.

   Glenn: There is a way to change the baseline offset in XSL, I'm
   pretty sure that can be done in CSS.

   Pierre: I've not seen it.

   Glenn: If the result is that some space is reserved so that if
   you add or subtract ruby it does not change the line spacing,
   then
   ... it might not look the greatest but it would work.

   Pierre: I've implemented it by putting an empty ruby container
   at the beginning of each line.

   Glenn: you insert `<br>`s?

   Pierre: Yes

   Glenn: So it's a ruby container with a strut?

   Pierre: Exactly. That guarantees it is exactly as if a ruby
   were present.

   Glenn: It sounds like you could support it then using that
   technique.

   Pierre: Right, but if the language for absolute length were
   worded where it was the length of the strut in the ruby text
   line
   ... area, then that would work.
   ... I still think that even if it were possible to do this in
   CSS I'm still not happy with the fact that the author has to
   pick this
   ... absolute length. I'm trying to see if there is a better way
   of doing it.

   Glenn: One thing we could do is take out `<length>` completely.

   Pierre: Yes, the only downside to that is that you can today
   override the "default" font size on ruby annotations.

   Glenn: That was the intent of having `<length>` in the first
   place.

   Pierre: My first inclination, in the spirit of exploration, is
   to change `<length>` for a font size. That does not take into
   account
   ... the exact font, decorations etc but that's closer to what
   the author can specify. That was one thought.

   Cyril: I don't understand about overriding the default size of
   ruby annotations.

   Pierre: On the ruby text container you can set fontSize=200%
   and the ruby ends up twice as big as the base.

   Cyril: Yes, and...

   Pierre: That changes the size of the ruby text and therefore
   the amount of space that has to be reserved.

   Glenn: I can see how this can be handled for the default value,
   but not how it would help if you specify an explicit length.
   ... If you would like to change an explicit length from being
   an absolute value to being ..

   Pierre: An 'em'

   Glenn: Right, and act accordingly, then that would not work if
   you had different font sizes or different fonts generating
   ... different ruby text container.

   Pierre: Or use emphasis on your ruby text.

   Cyril: The way I'm using rubyReserve at the moment is I'm
   setting it on div. You're saying if the ruby font size is
   changed then
   ... that value would be wrong?

   Pierre: Yes, I'm exploring how to make it easy for the user not
   to make a mistake.

   Glenn: I'm willing to change the semantics of length so that if
   you specify an absolute value then have length not be absolute
   ... but pretend that this was the ruby font size used with all
   ruby text in this paragraph and do it as though that were the
   case.

   Cyril: The maximum

   Pierre: exactly.

   Glenn: Then I would need to change the semantics of `<length>`
   as well.

   Pierre: And the default has to be implementation dependent.

   Glenn: Yeah... I'd like at least a note that suggests some
   approach.

   Pierre: The reason I'm bringing this up is I implemented the
   exact lineHeight="normal" algorithm specified and the
   overwhelming
   ... feedback from users is that it was stupid and they
   preferred what browsers do when line-height is normal.
   ... I like the idea of a note but unfortunately it should be
   left to implementations.

   Glenn: Even for lineHeight we have an algorithm that ascribes
   meaning to "normal".

   Pierre: In practice that does not work. People expect normal to
   just look good, to have enough space for text. That's the
   bottom line.

   Glenn: The note is "it's implementation dependent but make it
   look good"

   Pierre: It's unfortunate. I don't know how to fix it.
   rubyReserve should be worded to give leeway to implementations.

   Glenn: I'm interested to know if this would cause an
   implementation problem.

   Cyril: I'll check with our guys.

   Glenn: I'm happy to make a pass at making that change so
   implementers can review what Pierre is proposing.

   Pierre: I'm happy to implement a straw man in imsc.js

   Glenn: I'll get something substantive out today or tomorrow.
   ... If we do this as a substantive change in TTML2 I expect to
   ask for permission to merge at our next meeting.
   ... We have a publishing moratorium coming up, and that could
   push us out even further.

   Cyril: I'd like to ask that we do an early merge of all the
   pending merges, it is hard to review the final spec.

   Glenn: I second that.

   Nigel: I'm unclear of the status of this proposal - are we
   saying we will prepare it and make this a resolution, or have a
   go
   ... at doing it and then an implementation play before
   confirming?

   Glenn: We should do the former.

   RESOLUTION: Change the interpretation of the length component
   of rubyReserve to mean the font size of ruby text for which
   reserved space is created.
   ... If the rubyReserve length component is not specified use
   the default value of the ruby text font size computed from the
   paragraph font size.

   github-bot, end topic

Add tts:lineShear and tts:shear style attributes (#784). ttml2#807

   github: [22]https://github.com/w3c/ttml2/pull/807


     [22] https://github.com/w3c/ttml2/pull/807


   Glenn: As far as I can tell this is wrapped up but Nigel you
   want to talk about fontShear.

   Nigel: The reason I haven't approved this is because I took it
   that we were tidying up all of fontShear, lineShear and shear
   ... and it looked as though we weren't there yet.
   ... One of the things I took from the discussion is that nobody
   wants fontShear and that it cannot be done in CSS so
   ... it seems like the easiest fix is to remove fontShear.

   Glenn: As I pointed out in lambdaCap there is a requirement for
   this.

   Nigel: And you cannot shear a word individually in CSS, right?

   Pierre: No you cannot.

   Glenn: Popular word processors provide a way to do this and it
   is not dependent on lines or blocks but is on a per character
   ... basis.

   Cyril: It is weird because they export CSS, so I wonder how
   they do that.

   Pierre: What I've seen is they just use oblique

   Glenn: Use of oblique could be a fallback.

   Pierre: I don't know of anyone who will use fontShear for
   subtitles and captions.

   Glenn: I have real world examples of Japanese captions that do
   it on a per-character basis, where some characters on a line
   ... have shear and some have no shear.

   Pierre: Everyone I've asked has been unable to provide a
   practical example, so I would love (not facetiously) to see a
   real
   ... world practical example.

   Cyril: We're trying to see if we are removing a feature because
   it might not be used. It is harmless to keep it.

   Pierre: Yes, put it at risk and move on.

   Glenn: I expect us to have two implementations.

   Pierre: I don't mind keeping fontShear in TTML2.

   Nigel: Okay, let's keep it.

   <glenn>
   [23]https://github.com/w3c/ttml2/issues/784#issuecomment-390849

   465

     [23] https://github.com/w3c/ttml2/issues/784#issuecomment-390849465


   Nigel: Now moving to the example, am I incorrect in thinking
   that glyph area fontShear should result in glyph areas being
   ... spaced apart?

   Glenn: The link I just added makes that clear from the
   lambdaCap spec.
   ... It is true that if you have a boundary between different
   shear values then to make it look good you have to do something
   ... with spacing between that boundary. TTPE uses some
   heuristics. Say you go from +ve shear to 0 shear. In a
   horizontal
   ... layout you have slant to the right. If you did nothing then
   there would be overlap at the boundary. In TTPE for glyph or
   ... character widths it computes a different width just to
   handle the boundary cases.

   Nigel: Ok I see.

   Glenn: I didn't want to dive that deep in the spec.

   Nigel: Fine, so we're happy that the examples are not
   incorrect.
   ... In that case all my comments are resolved so I'll approve.

   Cyril: I made one comment once that the way we resolve the
   shear transformation is that 100% translates to 90º and that
   ... resolves to an unresolved calculation. I suggested using a
   formula instead.

   Glenn: I didn't see that. Can we take that offline? That's a
   potential bug with the shear transformation section.

   Cyril: It's purely editorial, I will send you the comment.

   Glenn: I suggest you create an issue for that and we handle it
   as an editorial change.

   SUMMARY: Following discussion, Nigel's change requests have
   been resolved.

   github-bot, end topic

Further refinement of features (#814). ttml2#815

   github: [24]https://github.com/w3c/ttml2/pull/815


     [24] https://github.com/w3c/ttml2/pull/815


   Nigel: Why is this on the agenda?

   Glenn: Because there are comments but no approval.
   ... The last comment is to add a note - I wouldn't object to
   such a note but I don't think it's necessary. In the interests
   of
   ... moving on I'd prefer to get this approved now.
   ... We could add such a note in PR.
   ... It is strictly editorial.

   Nigel: The more important comment is
   [25]https://github.com/w3c/ttml2/pull/815#discussion_r193401615


     [25] https://github.com/w3c/ttml2/pull/815#discussion_r193401615


   Glenn: I wanted to say you could support #extent-image without
   supporting #extent-auto-version-2.
   ... I didn't want to force you to support all the values.

   Nigel: Right, we're agreed on that, but it's not clear at the
   moment, so I wanted to split out auto on region from auto on
   image
   ... as two separate features.

   Pierre: Yes please. The semantics are so different that it
   really makes sense.

   Glenn: I was thinking of #auto-version-2 as a mix-in feature -
   if you did not support extent-image but you turned on
   ... auto-version-2 then that would apply to region and tt but
   not image since image is not supported.

   Nigel: But you have no way to say you support auto extent on
   image but not on tt and region.

   Glenn: That's true, and we have that situation in other places
   too, for example length-measure implies support wherever a
   ... length is supported. All the length features are basically
   mix-ins.

   Nigel: I think it's a minor editorial task to do what I'm
   suggesting here.

   Glenn: OK, I can do that.
   ... If we do that is there anything else on this that needs
   more work.

   Nigel: If we do that then it's particularly apposite to add the
   note I propose in
   [26]https://github.com/w3c/ttml2/pull/815#discussion_r193402545


     [26] https://github.com/w3c/ttml2/pull/815#discussion_r193402545


   Glenn: How about we create `#extent-region-version-2` that
   implies auto support?

   Nigel: That could work.

   Glenn: I have enough to proceed.
   ... If I get the pull request fixed today maybe you guys can
   review it before the weekend.

   Nigel: okay, thanks.

   SUMMARY: @skynavga to address outstanding comments as discussed
   above.

   github-bot, end topic

TTML2 Pull Request early merges

   Glenn: Cyril proposed that we do an early merge of outstanding
   pull requests.
   ... If we agree then I'll do it in the next couple of days.

   Pierre: Can I propose that we go for a new CR in two weeks.
   ... And issue a Call for Consensus today.

   Nigel: We can't do that because there's work to be done.

   Pierre: Can we make it contingent?

   Glenn: I'm hearing a suggestion to run our review in parallel
   with the CfC for CR2.

   Nigel: We have precedence for that, but I can't issue a CfC for
   something that does not exist yet.
   ... Can I suggest that the changes we agreed today are done and
   we try to move all PRs by Monday, at which point I can issue
   ... a call for consensus.

   Pierre: That's okay.
   ... What we're saying is we're freezing the issues as of today.

   Glenn: Freezing them and still allowing new PRs on those issue.

   Pierre: Right, and if all those PRs are merged on Monday, then
   initiate a consensus.

   Glenn: And Nigel would make the call on Monday.

   Nigel: That's right.

   Cyril: I'm fine with that. Just to make sure, if we find
   editorial issues we can still address them during CR2, right?

   Nigel: We have two windows here: during CfC if issues arise as
   a result of the early merges then they need to be addressed
   ... and could cause us to stop. After CR2 is published
   substantive changes can only be made on the way to PR if they
   are
   ... removal of at risk features, otherwise we need a CR3.

   Pierre: I think it's important to go to CR2 as soon as
   possible.

   Glenn: I agree

   PROPOSAL: Merge outstanding pull requests on Monday with the
   intent of the Chair issuing a CfC for transition to CR2.

   Nigel: Any objections?

   RESOLUTION: Merge outstanding pull requests on or before Monday
   with the intent of the Chair issuing a CfC for transition to
   CR2.

   Glenn: Thanks everyone for helping get through the issues.

   Pierre: I'm available to help with the rubyReserve stuff.

Meeting Close

   Nigel: Thanks everyone! [adjourns meeting]

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

    1. [27]Modify this pull request to deal with #694 only.
    2. [28]Change the interpretation of the length component of
       rubyReserve to mean the font size of ruby text for which
       reserved space is created.
    3. [29]Merge outstanding pull requests on or before Monday
       with the intent of the Chair issuing a CfC for transition
       to CR2.

   [End of minutes]
     __________________________________________________________


    Minutes formatted by David Booth's [30]scribe.perl version
    1.152 ([31]CVS log)
    $Date: 2018/06/07 16:09:59 $

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

     [31] 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, 7 June 2018 16:11:27 UTC