- From: Thierry MICHEL <tmichel@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2004 16:04:38 +0200
- To: <public-tt@w3.org>
Minutes of TT WG Meeting on March 4-5, 2004, Mandelieu, France Attendees Glenn Adams (XFSI, Chair, Scribe) [GA] Geoff Freed (WGBH/NCAM) [GF] - IRC only (day 2 partial) Sean Hayes (MSFT) [SH] Dave Kirby (BBC) [DK] Thierry Michel (W3C) [TM] Dave Singer (Apple) [DS] Observers Bert Bos (W3C) [BB] - day 2 Philip Hoschka (W3C) [PH] - day 1 partial Regrets Mike Dolan (Invited Expert) Erik Hodge (REAL) [EH] ************************************************************************ Agenda ************************************************************************ Day 1 (Thursday, March 4, 2004) 09:00 - 10:30 Agenda Planning Review and Acceptance of Prior Minutes Consideration of SYMM WG Merger Consideration of transition from CPP to Patent Policy Planning for Next F2F 10:30 - 11:00 Break 11:00 - 12:30 Review Layered Document Structure Assumptions Consider supporting standard style/timing at LF layer; in particular, moving applicative style/timing to LF layer, leaving referential/inline style/timing at PF/NF layers. 12:30 - 13:30 Lunch 13:30 - 15:00 Continue review of architecture/assumptions Review xpath subset proposal [SH] 15:30 - 16:00 Break 16:00 - 17:30 Review style draft from [GF] Day 2 (Friday, March 5, 2004) 09:00 - 10:30 Example walk throughs 10:30 - 11:00 Break 11:00 - 12:30 Review timing and animation details 12:30 - 13:30 Lunch 13:30 - 15:00 Descriptive markup vocabulary Standardized metadata vocabulary 15:30 - 16:00 Break 16:00 - 17:30 Content selection ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Day 1 (Thursday, March 4, 2004) ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ + AGENDA PLANNING WG: accepted as shown above. + REVIEW AND ACCEPTANCE OF PRIOR MINUTES WG: accept minutes up to but not including previous F2F (Feb 4-6, 2004) Action: [GA] Post edited draft minutes for previous F2F for review. + CONSIDERATION OF SYMM WG MERGER [GA] Reviews how we got to current point of considering merger. Notes the following: * W3T/M wants informal input from TTWG; * if we need to consider question formally, then this would involve [TM] sending formal requests to AC representatives of current TTWG members; * current charter for TTWG is good up until 12/31/04; * if TTWG doesn't need to change (add) deliverables, then it is possible to extend existing charter for TTWG; Consensus: if merging with SYMM WG would bring new members who are interested and already up to speed, then there would be general support for merger; [DK] When would SYMM WG be ready to contribute to TT? [TM] Probably wouldn't have time even if they wanted to do so in the current charter under consideration. [TM] Current work under consideration for SYMM WG charter: (1) SMIL 2.0 Revision 1 (incorporates errata) (2) SMIL 2.1 - a mobile profile (3) SMIL 3.0 - professional profile ++ [TM] Most likely scenario - SYMM WG work would not have time to consider any TT work until SMIL 3.0 work at earliest. Consensus: Do not wish to formally consider merger until (1) it becomes necessary to renew charter to add deliverables AND (2) it is clear that there is an advantage in terms of cross-participation among SYMM WG and current TT WG members. To the extent that co-location of SYMM WG and TT WG meetings enables and encourages cross-participation, then such co-location should be considered on an ongoing basis. Rationale: (1) concerns that premature merger would entail additionals delays in current TT WG work as a result of need to bring up to speed new members and re-establish consensus as necessary; (2) requiring change to new patent policy and increased scope would need to be covered by new participation agreements which might not be obtainable from current members; (3) in order to meet obligations of having to sign participation agreement covering all of SYMM WG scope/charter would entail increased work load on part of TTWG participants that may effectively be outside of their field of interest. SIDE-BAR Action: [TM] consult with W3C Legal to determine whether requirements exist to explicitly obtain disclosure from past and current public comments that have resulted in requirements, etc., specifically, requirement R307. Note that this question is in regard to current TTWG status under CPP. + CONSIDERATION OF TRANSITION FROM CPP TO PATENT POLICY [GA] Do the current participants have an opinion on voluntarily transitioning to new patent policy prior to being necessary as a result of rechartering with new deliverables? [SH] Doesn't want to do this. [DS] Would rather not. [DK] Can't see advantage. [SH] Huge amount of work on my part without seeing any advantage. Consensus: Don't transition voluntarily to new patent policy until forced to do so by rechartering with new deliverables or other changes to formal W3C policy. + PLANNING FOR NEXT F2F [GA] Had previously planned informally a meeting in June in Japan, host and date TBD. Note that NCRD (National Rehabilitation Center for Persons with Disabilities). [GA] SYMM WG has tentative plans for F2F at CWI Amsterdam for week of May 10; would like us to consider co-locating. Tentative Dates: * May 10-12 in Amsterdam, CWI; meeting on 12th up to noon * Jun 22-24 in Cupertino or Mt. View, CA (either Apple or MSFT) Actions: [TM] Coordinate with Dick Bultermann for logistic details. * Coffee Break * + REVIEW LAYERED DOCUMENT STRUCTURE ASSUMPTIONS [GA] Consider supporting standard style/timing at LF layer; in particular, moving applicative style/timing to LF layer, leaving referential/inline style/timing at PF/NF layers. [GA] Reviews previous discussions and consensus positions from last F2F. [DS] Draws diagram: LF PF NF Content X|I I(C) I(G) Style A|I R|I R|I Timing A^I I I Key: A = applicative R = referential X = external I = inline I(c) = inline characters I(g) = inline glyphs | = inclusive or ^ = exclusive or Notionally, PF is closest to DFX (distribution format transform) profile. [DK] Why not define DFX to be identical to PF? *or* PF could be DFX. [DS] If we don't do something [SH+GA] Let's define identity transform from DFX to "TT-DF-NS-1-0" (NS = non-streaming), i.e., this implies a non-streaming DF will drop out of TT-AF-1-0 directly. [PH] Agrees. [TM] Wants to discuss testing/implementation requirements for developing test suites for CR process. [SH] Should have normative testable assertions in spec. [GA] Does QA group define standard assertion format? [SH] Thinks it is specific to WGs. Action: [TM] review test suites developed by RDF WG, which focused on authorial intent, to see if some concepts and methodology can be reused in TTWG context. [TM] Recent experience with XForms to write assertions and develop tests within WG. [SH] Good practice. [TM] Test suites allow common understanding of functionality; also helps avoid huge specs where some functionality won't be implemented. [TM] What will be the CR exit criteria? Action: [TM] Will research CR exit criteria and make proposal. Possible Model for Test Methodology LF <--> DF(lf), e.g., AML | | xfrm(x) | v PF --> DF(pf), e.g., 3GPP TT, RealText, SAMI | | xfrm(y) | v NF --> DF(nf), e.g., SVG 1. define example model for xfrm(x) 2. define example model for xfrm(y) 3. define example model for PF->DF(3gpp) 4. define example model for NF->DF(svg) 5. use DF(svg) output from #4 as visual presentation semantics Principles 1. must be able to implement arbitrary xfrm(x), xfrm(y); 2. must define in spec at least one xfrm(x), xfrm(y); 3. define mechanism on LF and PF that allows author to express that specific xfrm() must be used to produce PF and NF, respectively; 4. define mechanism on PF and NF that allows author to express that instance(PF) and instance(NF) was produced by specific xfrm() 5. specify two classes of tools: C0 and C1, where C0 is tool that can perform xfrm(x) and C1 is tool that can perform xfrm(y) 6. C0 is such that, given standard input(LF), then it can produce standard output(PF) 7. C1 is such that, given standard input(PF), then it can produce standard output(NF) 8. there must be 2 independently developed tools in sets C0 and C1 (N.B. this may be relaxed to operate on a feature by feature basis; i.e., process doc only requires 2 independent implementations for individual features) + CONTINUE REVIEW OF ARCHITECTURE/ASSUMPTIONS Summary of Consensus from Review of Architecture/Assumptions 1. LF now has standard style/timing, both of which are applicative, but also support inline; N.B. this is a change from previous F2F; 2. PF now limited to referential/inline style/timing; N.B. this is a change from previous F2F; 3. must define at least standard transform between each of LF->PF and PF->NF; 4. must define mechanism to indicate necessity of using specific transform and prior use of transform; 5. need documents test(LF) and test(PF) and test(NF) in order to test standard transforms; intention is to build tests from normative examples in documentation; * Coffee Break * + REVIEW XPATH SUBSET PROPOSAL [SH] [SH] Shows examples of how one might use XPath 2.0 tools to perform space delimited token selection. Resolution: Use subset of xquery [probably drawn entirely from xpath 2.0] to perform selection for both applying styling and timing at LF layer. Action: [SH] to draft standard ready text for subset of xquery. + REVIEW STYLE DRAFT FROM [GF] Resolution: For normative definitions of style parameters, reference first the normative definition in XSL FO, and normatively augment this with SVG representations of desired results to the extent this is possible. Where possible, do not re-express prose of referenced definitions; however, in all cases, specify at least one normative example using NF/SVG, possibly may need PF and/or LF depending on abstractness of property. Rationale: in case SVG WG says SVG 1.2 does everything we want, then why do TTWG; possible answer: we're providing a workflow chain going from a more abstract source document with domain specific semantics through a series of more concrete layers to end up with a subset of SVG 1.2. Rationale: in case CSS WG asks why we aren't using CSS syntax, the answer is that CSS has no infoset, can't be XQueried, can't be XSLTed, isn't DOMable, etc. we want full XML based infoset workflow... [DS] Il voudrait une compilation des resolutions/diagrammes... ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Day 2 (Friday, March 5, 2004) ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ [GA] While waiting for folks to show up, finds and reads Goon Show Scripts from [1]. [1] http://www.thegoonshow.co.uk/ [GA] Suggestion: use Goon Show script as example TT content in REC. + EXAMPLE WALK THROUGH - DEFINITION OF EXAMPLE DOC FROM TOP-TO-BOTTOM See 20040304-ex1.xml. Action: [GA] post example file to member reflector. + REVIEW TIMING AND ANIMATION DETAILS Working Assumption: Adopt following time semantics model for PF layer: Element Container Timeable Default Action Other Actions flows par no none none flow par yes visibility none block par yes display visibility inline par yes display visibility To specify other actions will require timeAction attribute or equivalent. For other elements that above, no time semantics apply. [DS] Concerned that above model may not handle all needed scrolling semantics. Resolution: Flow in PF layer is not associated with region; rather, top-level blocks are associated with regions via style. Resolution: Inline timing is permitted. [See above working assumptions.] Open Issue: Whether to allow block as immediate child of inline? N.B. XSL-FO does allow this. [GA] showed example of renmoji (horizontal block in vertical Japanese lines). Action: [DS] Based on email of 01/14, integrate with fillBehavior as described in example. [BB] What additional style properties on region? [DS] review R306 as possible candidates: e.g., background-color, border-*, visibility [GA] region is defined as a reference/viewport area pair; where block/inline- scroll offset are used to locate origin of reference with respect to viewport; animation of these parameters make scrolling operation possible, such as smooth or jump scrolling. [SH] suggests considering not supporting float related properties in R306; either remove or change shall to should or may in requirement. Action: [SH] make proposal regarding keeping or removing float style parameters. + DESCRIPTIVE MARKUP VOCABULARY Insufficient time to discuss; however, see example file [?] for references to agents. + STANDARDIZED METADATA VOCABULARY Insufficient time to discuss; however, see example file [?] for some attempts regarding agents, performers, etc. + CONTENT SELECTION [GA] describes DISelect WD from DIWG [3]. [3] http://www.w3.org/2001/di/Group/di-selection/ Provided this mechanism is well-defined and validatable as XML, then it could be used to satisfy R207 [and could provide a few useful features beyond R207 such as the ability to match all conditionally selected elements]. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ START SUMMARY ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ *** RESOLUTIONS *** Consensus: Do not wish to formally consider merger until (1) it becomes necessary to renew charter to add deliverables AND (2) it is clear that there is an advantage in terms of cross-participation among SYMM WG and current TT WG members. To the extent that co-location of SYMM WG and TT WG meetings enables and encourages cross-participation, then such co-location should be considered on an ongoing basis. Rationale: (1) concerns that premature merger would entail additionals delays in current TT WG work as a result of need to bring up to speed new members and re-establish consensus as necessary; (2) requiring change to new patent policy and increased scope would need to be covered by new participation agreements which might not be obtainable from current members; (3) in order to meet obligations of having to sign participation agreement covering all of SYMM WG scope/charter would entail increased work load on part of TTWG participants that may effectively be outside of their field of interest. Resolution: Use subset of xquery [probably drawn entirely from xpath 2.0] to perform selection for both applying styling and timing at LF layer. Resolution: For normative definitions of style parameters, reference first the normative definition in XSL FO, and normatively augment this with SVG representations of desired results to the extent this is possible. Where possible, do not re-express prose of referenced definitions; however, in all cases, specify at least one normative example using NF/SVG, possibly may need PF and/or LF depending on abstractness of property. Resolution: Flow in PF layer is not associated with region; rather, top-level blocks are associated with regions via style. Resolution: Inline timing is permitted. [See above working assumptions.] *** OPEN ACTION ITEMS *** Action: [SH] Will investigate use of media queries in this context and report back. Action: [DS with help of Paul Nelson and Peter Lofting] Write RFC to register appropriate opentype/truetype font types as MIME media types, suggest model of "application/font-<font-type-name>", e.g., "application/font-truetype". Action: [GA] Make proposal regarding use of Xlink vocabulary or "src" attribute. Action: [GF] Investigate whether to use IRIs instead of URIs? Note: XPointer and Namespaces in 1.1 use IRIs? Action: [SH] Investigate use of "role" vs "class" attribute. Action: [GF] Investigate mechanism for cascading semantics and whether to support cascading on either or both logical and presentation flowed vocabularies. Action: [GA] Draft new requirement on "Integrability" in general terms that should not impact testing or implementation requirements. Action: [GA] incorporate agreed changes into TT-AF-1-0-REQ in preparation for publishing final W3C Note. Action: [SH] will review and propose subset of aural parameters (see R305). Action: [GA] Add figure showing logical structure anticipated by requirements. Action: [GA] Add note to R217 and R219 that shows use of data: URI scheme. Action: [TM] Find out if xpointer() scheme WD [1] is still being progressed forward. [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/xptr-xpointer/#document-order-notation Action: [SH] to propose subset with extensions for use in CS Profile. Action: [GA]/[GF] investigate syntax for regions vis-a-vis style. Action: [DK] To write up short paragraph on uses of role tokens. Suggest removing or adding as he progresses. Action: [TM] to propose and define standard MD attributes. Action: [*] Think about standard MD items (and write something down and send to list so we can think about it too). Action: [GA] Need to start planning for June meeting in Japan! Action: [GA] Post edited draft minutes for previous F2F (02/04) for review. Action: [TM] consult with W3C Legal to determine whether requirements exist to explicitly obtain disclosure from past and current public comments that have resulted in requirements, etc., specifically, requirement R307. Note that this question is in regard to current TTWG status under CPP. Action: [TM] review test suites developed by RDF WG, which focused on authorial intent, to see if some concepts and methodology can be reused in TTWG context. Action: [TM] Will research CR exit criteria and make proposal. Action: [SH] to draft standard ready text for subset of xquery. Action: [GA] post example file to member reflector. Action: [DS] Based on email of 01/14, integrate with fillBehavior as described in example. Action: [SH] make proposal regarding keeping or removing float style parameters. *** OPEN ISSUES *** Issue: Whether to use XLink vocabulary, e.g., as used consistently by SVG, or use "src" attribute as apparently will be done in XHTML2? Issue: Whether to use IRIs instead of URIs? Note: XPointer and Namespaces in 1.1 use IRIs? Issue: Should we use "class" instead of "role"? Issue: Probably want to permit in logical content mode the selection of content based on generic XML features of non-TT namespace descriptive markup, e.g., for applying style and timing semantics, in which case an appropriate TT container element shall be implied based on nearest ancestor TT namespace element. Issue: Need to think about cascading semantics; how to express, how to apply, etc. Possibly use CSS semantics here as well. Issue (2004-03-05): Whether to allow block as immediate child of inline? N.B. XSL-FO does allow this. [GA] showed example of renmoji (horizontal block in vertical Japanese lines). *** URLs *** [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/xptr-xpointer/#document-order-notation *** NEXT MEETING DATES *** * Mar 11 - commence regular telecon schedule * May 10-12 in Amsterdam, CWI; start on 10th at 1030h * Jun 22-24 in Mt. View, CA or Cupertino (either MSFT or Apple) ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ END SUMMARY ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Thierry MICHEL W3C/ERCIM
Received on Monday, 26 April 2004 10:12:42 UTC