Re: [PNG] Cancelling May 15th, 2023 meeting?

Average luminance GitHub Issue is here
<https://github.com/w3c/PNG-spec/issues/311>.

Good idea to discuss our next publication. Would you like to start that
conversation here?
My understanding is we're in a good spot but could wrap up a few last
issues if we wanted. But they aren't blockers.
I also believe we would need to vote on if we're ready for our next
publication. To that end, I would love to hear from people about how they
feel and if something would make them hesitate to vote 'yes'.

On Sat, May 13, 2023 at 10:24 AM Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org> wrote:

> I'm fine cancelling Monday's meeting, but I would like there to be some
> discussion about what we need to do to publish an updated PNG Working Draft
> so that we can start TAG review.
>
> I also suggest putting the content from your average luminance paragraph
> below into a GitHub issue, which is much easier to keep track of than email.
>
> Agree that we should meet informally but that there isn't a pressing
> reason to hold a meeting at TPAC.
> On 2023-05-12 18:36, Chris Blume (ProgramMax) wrote:
>
> Hello everyone,
>
> My internet suddenly dropped out yesterday and has been pretty unstable
> ever since. I'm not confident that I'll be able to host Monday's meeting.
>
> I'm happy for someone else to host if they want. But we also might not
> have much to talk about which couldn't be an email.
>
>    - Do we know of any standard which carries average luminance
>    information? (This is different from MaxFALL.) This is needed for SMPTE ST
>    2094-10. We could perhaps add it to the cLLi chunk. But then that chunk no
>    longer resembles the standard it was based on. Plus, the content authoring
>    app could know that the content isn't in a color space where average
>    luminance is a normal tool for tone mapping (and thus SMPTE ST 2094-10
>    doesn't apply).
>    - Anne suggested we use official wording for implementation defined
>    <https://infra.spec.whatwg.org/#implementation-defined> when it comes
>    to either historic implementation divergence which we now corrected onto
>    one path, or things we do not want to define. I think this is a good idea.
>    Thoughts?
>    - No one has mentioned yet if they feel the PNG WG should make an
>    official presence at TPAC 2023. (We can still go if we want.) Unless there
>    is a push for it, I'll respond to W3C soon letting them know we do not
>    intend to go as a group.
>
> Let me know your thoughts on these topics and if you want to keep Monday's
> meeting.
>
> Thanks!
> - Chris
>
> --
> Chris Lilley
> @svgeesus
> Technical Director @ W3C
> W3C Strategy Team, Core Web Design
> W3C Architecture & Technology Team, Core Web & Media
>
>