- From: Nigel Megitt <nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk>
- Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2019 16:25:02 +0000
- To: Timed Text Working Group <public-tt@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <D91EFC99.45A60%nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk>
Thanks all for attending todays TTWG meeting. Minutes can be found in HTML format at https://www.w3.org/2019/06/06-tt-minutes.html let me know if you have a preference for the previous format or this new v2 one. (but I dont want to know if you dont care!)
In text format:
[1]W3C
[1] https://www.w3.org/
Timed Text Working Group Teleconference
06 June 2019
[2]Agenda. [3]IRC log.
[2] https://github.com/w3c/ttwg/issues/41
[3] https://www.w3.org/2019/06/06-tt-irc
Attendees
Present
Cyril, Gary, Glenn, Nigel, Philippe, Pierre
Regrets
Andreas
Chair
Nigel
Scribe
cyril, nigel
Contents
* [4]Meeting minutes
1. [5]this meeting
2. [6]WebVTT Implementation Report
3. [7]TTML2 and TTML3 Pull Requests
4. [8]Contextualize 'considered an error' (#1067).
ttml2#1098
5. [9]Charter status
6. [10]Meeting close
Meeting minutes
this meeting
<nigel> Log: [11]https://www.w3.org/2019/06/06-tt-irc
[11] https://www.w3.org/2019/06/06-tt-irc
nigel: we've got WebVTT IR
gary has made some progress
we've got TTML2 aggenda items
TTML2 Profile Registry
Philippe should join and give charter update
glenn: I have a broader set with a different order
nigel: that's what was labelled agenda on tuesday
glenn: when we get there we can fine tune the order
nigel: it's fair for members to cover the ones that were on the
agenda first
glenn: ok
nigel: AOB?
WebVTT Implementation Report
nigel: Gary has posted an update
a beautiful Wiki page
<nigel> [12]WebVTT Implementation Report
[12] https://www.w3.org/wiki/TimedText/WebVTT_Implementation_Report
gkatsev: I have transformed the spreadsheet into the wiki page
for all the features that are not at risk
I believe there are 10 tests that are not passing
but I think these tests are failing mostly because impl bugs
and because of the way WebVTT is with no "feature" per se
one test not passing does not mean that a feature is not
implementable
because the parts that are being tested is also tested in
rendering tests
so unless we can get implementations to fix their bug, we'll
be stuck there
glenn: can you remove the tests?
we've done that in other specs
plh_: we could remove it from the report and/or the repository
if it is not wrong, I would not remove it from the repo
glenn: in TTML2 and IMSC1, we used a driver to remove tests
that we did not want in the report
plh_: we just need a list that is relevant for the director
plh_: the main goal for the report is to show to the Director
if we have red and explanations that's fine
nigel: you said 10 tests
that sounds like a large number
plh_: no, it's not
nigel: I still find it hard to grasp the user impact
gkatsev: the failing tests I don't think show that the spec is
not implementable
nigel: the exit criteria says 2 indep implementations of each
feature
implementability is not part of the exit criteria
that's a different thing
I'm trying to understand what might look like a feature and
that is not passing
plh_: we have multiple tests for each feature
nigel: a failing test might show that a part of a feature has a
problem
or it might be an edge case
plh_: or it shows that the underlying CSS engine is not yet
there
WebVTT delegates a lot of things to CSS
if one of those tests fail, does it mean we should not
mention that property in WebVTT?
I don't think so
nigel: you've made a logical leap that's too big
plh_: webvtt relies on CSS semantics
nigel: yes, but these are implementation tests not semantics
test
plh_: can you point to a feature that is pretty bad
nigel: I'm worried about positioning
settings line, settings position
if you cannot be sure that WebVTT cannot work with
positioning of text
that's a problem
gkatsev: all of these positioning things are tested in the
rendering test and working properly
the parsing tests are complex and have lots of edge cases
Firefox fails because their parsing is very very strict
and parses as much as it can and as soon as it sees something
unusual that should be ignored it ignores everything
a lot of the implementations are quite old
I'm actually surprised to see how well they do
the region lines are failing because the tests use a 2^32
value that is beyond integer and the spec says it's a long
plh_: in this case of long, how often do you want to use such a
big number
blocking the spec on this kind of thing would be stupid
nigel: can we ask as a macro level, with the implementations
that we have test for, can we use regions?
gkatsev: you can use regions in Firefox and VLC
nigel: and the failing tests, what do they show us?
region lines is the long one
if you use normal numbers it passes?
gkatsev: yes
nigel: in a well formed file that uses id in the int space,
Firefox would render correctly
gkatsev: yes
plh_: at this point, people need to look at the IR and ask
questions
I'd like to start a CfC to move into PR
if people need more time to review the PR, they should ask
pal: it seems that some tests are non-sensical, we could just
change the test
plh_: I think it makes sense to have edge cases test
pal: what's uncool is to ship a product with failing tests?
I'm just talking basic software practices
nigel: we're not talking about the tests being cool, we're
talking about the spec
pal: what makes me uncomfortable is that if a feature is in the
spec, somebody will run into it
one issue is to remove the test, file an issue with the spec
to fix it
if we say we'll never do it, we should fix the spec
plh_: the implementations need to be fixed
pal: I've seen similar examples in TTML
pal: I don't want block the spec
I want to resolve it without ignoring it
plh_: I'm suggesting not to resolve them in a rush
maybe the v2 of WebVTT will fix that
pal: I'm suggesting to remove the test and file an issue with
the spec and move on
gkatsev: the main utility of keeping it long is consistency
with other specs like HTML
but I cannot imagine someone using a long
plh_: I'd like to start a CfC
the failures are edge cases at this point
pal: file an issue and remove the test
plh_: you want to rush things, I don't
nigel: if you want to start a consensus gathering, you should
start
you can send an email for CfC or ask here
with a 10 day
plh_: I'll start an email CfC
and if people are not happy, they will have 10 days to do so
pal: I'm totally confused regarding filing issues
what's the problem
plh_: I just don't want to block the spec
pal: it can be in the backlog
I'm kindly asking Gary to file an issue because he
understands better
gkatsev: I can do that
nigel: specifically for this one, it would be nice to have a
test that does not exercise the long range and show that it
passes
nigel: done on WebVTT?
TTML2 and TTML3 Pull Requests
glenn: I'd like to go in a different order
1107 ?
nigel: no because it's unfair to ask people to review issues
that were not in the agenda
glenn: no because there are dependencies
nigel: anybody had a look at it?
[silence]
plh_: I think we need to move on with the agenda
as sent out by nigel
glenn: in that case, I'd like to defer 1108 and 1089 and
request a 2h meeting next week
Contextualize 'considered an error' (#1067). ttml2#1098
<nigel> github: [13]https://github.com/w3c/ttml2/pull/1098
[13] https://github.com/w3c/ttml2/pull/1098
nigel: there are many open parts on this
there are unresolved conversations
nigel: about TR and RR I pushed that in a separate conversation
Nigel: [group iterates through unresolved conversations and
moves issues to separate tickets] We've resolved all the
unresolved conversations.
Any objections to merging?
group: no objections
Nigel: Ok we can go ahead and merge this.
Charter status
<glenn> regrets for Jun 20 meeting
nigel: any update ?
plh_: still within W3M
I've got a few comments that I need to address
nothing substantive
it should be approved not Wednesday but the next one
nigel: I did notice a comment on horiz review
the one from richard, it seems to be a mistake on our side
plh_: I'm pushing the accessibility people to review
<plh_> [14]https://github.com/w3c/strategy/issues/177
[14] https://github.com/w3c/strategy/issues/177
plh_: we changed the charter regarding horiz review 2 weeks ago
<plh_> [15]https://github.com/w3c/strategy/projects/2
[15] https://github.com/w3c/strategy/projects/2
pal: maybe the reason it was removed is because it was in the
liaison section
could be added easily
Meeting close
Nigel: I have a clash for what would be the first hour of a two
hour meeting if we do it at the usual time of 1400 UTC
next week, so I'll send out a separate message to the group
about scheduling the call next week.
Thanks everyone. [adjourns meeting]
Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by
Bert Bos's [16]scribe.perl version Mon Apr 15 13:11:59 2019
UTC, a reimplementation of David Booth's [17]scribe.perl. See
[18]history.
[16] https://w3c.github.io/scribe2/scribedoc.html
[17] https://dev.w3.org/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
[18] https://github.com/w3c/scribe2/commits/master/scribe.perl
Received on Thursday, 6 June 2019 16:25:29 UTC