- From: Nigel Megitt <nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk>
- Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2019 17:25:27 +0000
- To: Timed Text Working Group <public-tt@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <D8C2B3F8.40415%nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk>
Thanks all for attending today’s TTWG meeting. Minutes are available in HTML format at https://www.w3.org/2019/03/28-tt-minutes.html
Please note that we made one resolution:
RESOLUTION: Publish current Editor's Draft of the Profile Registry as a /TR Note and then consider #71 later.
The review period for this resolution under our Decision Policy ends on 2018-04-11 so please raise any objections before then.
In this case the document is a Working Group Note and we are able to publish new versions with minimal overhead.
The minutes in text format:
[1]W3C
[1] http://www.w3.org/
Timed Text Working Group Teleconference
28 Mar 2019
[2]Agenda
[2] https://github.com/w3c/ttwg/issues/28
See also: [3]IRC log
[3] https://www.w3.org/2019/03/28-tt-irc
Attendees
Present
Nigel, Glenn, Gary, Pierre, Matt, Philippe
Regrets
Andreas, Cyril
Chair
Nigel
Scribe
nigel
Contents
* [4]Topics
1. [5]This Meeting
2. [6]TTWG Charter 2019
3. [7]Add wording permitting TTML3 and a modular
approach. charter-timed-text#40
4. [8]Support live contribution and audio description
profiles charter-timed-text#44
5. [9]Other thoughts on the draft charter.
6. [10]TTML Profile Registry
7. [11]WebVTT Implementation report and CR update
8. [12]TTML2 and TTML3 pull requests
9. [13]Add module framework (#29). ttml3#30
10. [14]September F2F meeting
11. [15]Meeting close.
* [16]Summary of Action Items
* [17]Summary of Resolutions
__________________________________________________________
<scribe> scribe: nigel
This Meeting
Nigel: Hello! [iterates through agenda]
Glenn: I have a couple of items on the profile registry
Nigel: Ok
... AOB or particular points to make sure we cover today?
group: [silence]
TTWG Charter 2019
Add wording permitting TTML3 and a modular approach.
charter-timed-text#40
github: [18]https://github.com/w3c/charter-timed-text/pull/40
[18] https://github.com/w3c/charter-timed-text/pull/40
Nigel: I updated this 2 days ago and @skynavga approved it.
... Any objections to me merging this now?
group: [no objections]
Nigel: Thanks, I'll merge it now... done.
SUMMARY: Pull Request merged.
Support live contribution and audio description profiles
charter-timed-text#44
github: [19]https://github.com/w3c/charter-timed-text/pull/44
[19] https://github.com/w3c/charter-timed-text/pull/44
Nigel: Andreas raised a comment that I think I addressed and I
addressed my own comments too.
... Again, I'd like to merge this so the single document is
available for review.
Glenn: It'd be nice to merge them all because it's difficult to
review the pull requests without a preview mechanism.
Philippe: Sorry I haven't had the time to look into making the
preview work yet.
Nigel: Any objections to me merging this?
group: [no objections]
SUMMARY: Pull request merged.
Other thoughts on the draft charter.
Glenn: There are some references to the SDP-US work which
should be taken out of the charter.
... I presume that the material on TTML2 has been changed to
describe 2nd Ed work not the original one.
[20]Current draft
[20] https://w3c.github.io/charter-timed-text/
Nigel: The wording has become more general there to allow new
versions of the TTML specification to be published. Please take
a look.
Philippe: Is SDP-US still relevant?
Glenn: It's still published as a WG Note and there's no reason
to change that, but we're not doing any work on it.
Philippe: We should list it in Other Deliverables in that case?
Glenn: You want to include past deliverables.
Philippe: It says "may be updated" and doesn't require any
work. [wants to keep it]
Glenn: Ok. In the scope, where it talks about new versions it
would be useful to talk about new editions.
Nigel: I think that's covered.
Pierre: This needs a whole editorial pass through because this
has grown organically over the years.
Glenn: +1
Pierre: I'd be happy to do it. It's difficult to contribute to
this because it's convoluted due to the amount of work we've
done.
... My goal would be to make a zero point edit, not change
small sections. Really rationalise it.
Glenn: yes, it's not organised very well.
Pierre: It needs to say what we will work on, what we will
maintain and specific topics to study.
Glenn: It may make it harder to review because it may look like
a bunch of changes.
Pierre: My suggestion is to start from scratch.
Glenn: I agree [ that this would be simpler ]
Philippe: I'm supportive of that. Maintenance of
Recommendations doesn't need to be said.
... We still have the deliverables, which can list the
documents to be maintained.
Pierre: At the end of the day people want to know our scope and
deliverables.
... And the dates.
Philippe: Yes, so the sections need to stay the same in term of
headers, so we have consistency across charters.
... The scope section could be simplified.
Nigel: It would have been nice to hear that a month ago! I
agree with the idea though.
Pierre: I'm offering.
Nigel: It's formally my role to prepare the draft charter and
I'm happy to take all input. The WG needs to agree it before
... it goes forward.
Philippe: Why don't we let Pierre have a stab at it?
<plh> [21]https://www.w3.org/Style/2016/css-2016.html
[21] https://www.w3.org/Style/2016/css-2016.html
Nigel: Yes. If you have a stab at that can you and I have a
call in the middle of next week to see where we're up to?
Pierre: Sure.
Philippe: The scope section of the CSS WG is way smaller and
that's the principle to follow - define the scope to be large
... to give the WG as much leeway as possible. The rest is
mechanic.
Nigel: In that case we should move to the next topic. All the
Pull Requests are now merged so it's a good starting point.
... I've just assigned Pierre issue #46.
TTML Profile Registry
Glenn: At this point there are no pull requests and there would
have been no issues but Cyril opened an issue, #71,
... asking to put all the information that we had about the
combination operators into the media type definition directly
... whereas previously we had augmented the introduction which
is informative. He thinks it should be normative and in
... the media type definition. We had expressed a desire to
avoid a full IANA expert review.
... He and Mike are not on the call. I'd like to point out we
need to get this Note updated on the main TR website for W3C.
... It'd be nice if we could do that as soon as possible. I'm
willing to wait until Cyril and Mike are online to discuss this
... issue further. I personally don't think we need to do what
he is suggesting here.
Nigel: We could update the note now and consider this for a
future change.
Glenn: I would go along with that.
... The last time it was updated on /TR was in 2017.
Nigel: Yes,
[22]https://www.w3.org/TR/2017/NOTE-ttml-profile-registry-20170
117/
[22] https://www.w3.org/TR/2017/NOTE-ttml-profile-registry-20170117/
Glenn: All we need is a resolution and then we can do that.
PROPOSAL: Publish current Editor's Draft of the Profile
Registry as a /TR Note and then consider #71 later.
<glenn>
[23]https://github.com/w3c/tt-profile-registry/issues/71
[23] https://github.com/w3c/tt-profile-registry/issues/71
Nigel: Any objections on this call to doing this?
... If we resolve this now there will be 2 weeks review under
our Decision Policy.
group: [no objections]
RESOLUTION: Publish current Editor's Draft of the Profile
Registry as a /TR Note and then consider #71 later.
Nigel: There's a publishing moratorium coming up - does that
apply here?
Philippe: No, we can use automatic publishing.
WebVTT Implementation report and CR update
Philippe: On the CR update I didn't see any objections to
updating the CR and the 2 week has passed, so can we record a
decision to publish an updated CR for WebVTT?
Nigel: Yes we can.
Philippe: Decision: update the CR for WebVTT with the draft
proposed by Gary
... I'll take care of the transition request, and take any
questions back to Gary. I will try to do it before the
publication moratorium.
Nigel: I added to the agenda a status update on the Netflix
questions about Japanese language tests, but Cyril isn't on
... the call so I suggest we skip that for now.
Gary: The IR is in pretty good shape this week.
... I've been going through the API parsing test.
... There were a couple of things without 2 implementations but
I was able to update vtt.js so now they pass.
... For Japanese I didn't get to look at it that much but
hopefully will have a better idea for next week.
TTML2 and TTML3 pull requests
Add module framework (#29). ttml3#30
github: [24]https://github.com/w3c/ttml3/pull/30
[24] https://github.com/w3c/ttml3/pull/30
Glenn: I'm waiting for someone to approve a review on this.
... The last comments I think were from Pierre a week ago.
... He suggests that we add this support to TTML2 as well.
... I think it's okay to consider that and would suggest Pierre
open an issue on TTML2
... asking to backport this pull request to TTML2 2nd Ed.
... That shouldn't prevent this pull request from going
forward.
... I believe I've addressed the other comments, though I can
still deal with other issues.
Nigel: There is an unanswered question, which I asked at
[25]https://github.com/w3c/ttml3/pull/30#issuecomment-473956814
... Which is whether to use "private" and "public" for
"unregistered" and "registered".
[25] https://github.com/w3c/ttml3/pull/30#issuecomment-473956814
Glenn: I took as my model the Unicode private use area, which
doesn't say anything about visibility, just registration.
Pierre: I still have an outstanding question - I don't
understand how processing would be different for private and
public.
Glenn: There is none.
Pierre: Then we should not introduce any distinction in the
spec.
Glenn: That doesn't follow! We have thousands of statements not
testable implementation-wise.
Pierre: Yes and that got us into trouble in the past so I'd
rather nip it in the bud now.
... There is no use for the distinction between public and
private.
Glenn: There is if you want to know if a private definition is
permitted or not. There's a note that refers to it.
Pierre: I don't understand why technically it matters.
Glenn: Do you recognise the use of a private use area in
Unicode?
Pierre: Yes absolutely.
Glenn: That's the model here.
Pierre: This tells people that some codes cannot be used later
for public definition.
... I don't see the parallel here with modules.
Glenn: We define a number of extensibility mechanisms - this is
simply another one.
Pierre: It's namespace driven. The allocation of namespaces is
done outside this document.
Glenn: One thing we could say with a normative impact is that a
private module must not use an officially defined
... timed text namespace.
Pierre: Sure but that's already defined everywhere anyway.
... I'm trying to reduce unnecessary complexity. It's
additional definitions which are therefore complexity.
Glenn: I'm willing to remove the public and private definitions
but will leave in the note that refers to private modules
... and just remove the link to the definition.
Pierre: Yes that will satisfy that comment.
... I think we discussed enabling modules but not specifically
defining them.
Nigel: +1 - enabling modules doesn't require spec text
necessarily.
... If you take out private and public then that resolves my
question.
Glenn: Can I get an approved review if I do that?
Pierre: I'm really more interested in the hooks we put into
TTML2 to allow for external specifications. We'll have to wait
for that.
... But in the meantime you've addressed my question and
comment on public/private.
Glenn: We can always add it back in if we need it later.
Nigel: The other question is about a module registry.
Glenn: Yes, and I will be drafting it soon.
Nigel: I question if we really need that - a profile will point
to the modules that define features it needs. Why do we need
something else?
Glenn: I think it's obvious to list the potential modules that
can be used.
... Getting this pull request completed and merged is a gate to
defining some modules.
... We have a record of taking a modular approach - it is not a
good use of time to revisit that.
Pierre: The real gate is on TTML2.
Glenn: You've noticed I've opened pull requests on TTML2.
Completion of TTML2 is a gate for TTML3.
Nigel: I don't think the modular language is the gate to
modules here, it's more the hooks for assigning vocabulary
... to particular processing approaches such as saying
ittp:fillLineGap should be processed as a style attribute.
Glenn: [comment about profiles referring to modules by feature
definitions]
Nigel: That's a new topic to discuss later.
... We have one more TTML2 pull request but not enough time to
cover it so I propose to defer it.
Glenn: I would like to resolve #1049.
Nigel: I don't think we can do that quickly - there are
insufficient tests for it right now.
Glenn: Request a 2 hour session next week.
September F2F meeting
github: [26]https://github.com/w3c/ttwg/issues/30
[26] https://github.com/w3c/ttwg/issues/30
Nigel: I think there's a growing consensus for a meeting at
TPAC and another F2F some time before then in the
... timescale when we will be working towards a CR transition.
... Any thoughts about when that would be?
Glenn: We need to start CR by early June for that.
Nigel: Previously that was when you were talking about FPWD,
wasn't it?
Glenn: [checks timescales with Philippe's tool]
... Getting to Rec by end of the year we need FPWD by July 9.
... For CR then the latest we could do it would be Oct 15.
Nigel: We know our processes take longer than this so we need
to back it up more, in real world times.
Glenn: Yes, 1st Oct for CR would be a good target, assuming we
don't go to a 2nd CR.
Nigel: I expected an earlier target.
... Beginning of Sep say means FPWD early June.
Glenn: That's reasonable.
... That could get us to Rec by mid-Nov best case
Nigel: Then a meeting in July or August would make sense.
... Terrible from a holidays perspective!
... I think I should look for dates in July. Anyone think
that's a terrible idea right now?
Pierre: Driving meeting times through a document timeline is a
good idea.
Glenn: I'm hearing "let's wait until we have a FPWD or close"
Pierre: Although, knowing our options, and starting to plan,
with a placeholder might help.
... But yes I agree that we may not be able to make a decision
until then.
Glenn: Fukuoka still looks like a good time for meeting.
Pierre: Yes, and it would be awesome if it hadn't been
scheduled at such a bad time relative to other industry events.
SUMMARY: Working assumption is meet at Fukuoka and attempt an
earlier f2f meeting in line with spec development.
Meeting close.
Nigel: Thanks everyone. [adjourns meeting]
Summary of Action Items
Summary of Resolutions
1. [27]Publish current Editor's Draft of the Profile Registry
as a /TR Note and then consider #71 later.
[End of minutes]
__________________________________________________________
Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by
David Booth's [28]scribe.perl version 1.154 ([29]CVS log)
$Date: 2019/03/28 17:20:07 $
[28] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
[29] 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, 28 March 2019 17:25:53 UTC