TTWG minutes October 10, 2008

Timed-text working group minutes October 10, 2008

ATTENDING:
Sean Hayes (SH)
David Kirby (DK)
Andrew Kirkpatrick (AK)
Philippe le Hegaret (PH)
Glenn Adams:  (GA)
Geoff Freed (GF, scribe)
John Birch (JB)

REGRETS:
Dick Bulterman (DB)
Frans de Jong (FJ)


Telecon time:
new time is 10:00/Eastern Friday, 3:00/UK

(ed:  see important note at end of minutes)

ACTION: philippe will set up the bridge for new time

SH: Adobe is now a member of the group; still working on AOL.

SH:  implementation sheet:
Andrew has submitted Adobe's implementation.
AK:  General goal of this working group is to get version 1 of DFXP  
finished, yes?  What are details concerning cutting features or  
adding features?

SH:  No specific discussion about what would be changed yet.  Trying  
to determine current implementations and what people want for final  
version.  Need to get 2LC out in January.  Not going to be many  
changes with short timeline.  Main job is to ensure reasonably good  
coverage of features; then see if features can be removed if not  
covered.  Nobody has implemented dynamicFlow; must figure out what to  
do with it.  Currently at risk.  May be changing conformance  
requirements, however.

GF:  The only thing we're chartered to change is dynamicFlow;  
everything else is either keep or cut.

GA:  New charter doesn't rule out any additions, but adding things  
might trigger new last calls and other steps.

PH:  Charter does rule out substantial additions.  If we add or make  
substantial changes, we must go back to another last call.

SH:  What does "substantial" mean?  Can we make small changes?

PH:  Yes, but not big changes.

GA:  Had considered some SVG/SMIL-like attributes to express optional  
features before processing.  This could be valuable and should be  
looked at.

SH:  Can discuss this later.

AK:  Back to implementation spreadsheet/Adobe.  We have a minimal  
implementation fo DFXP to display captions in current  
implementation.  Re comment on list that Adobe's implementation is  
not valid DFXP:   it accepts valid DFXP as well as invalid DFXP.   
regarding CNET and Library of Congress implementations:  those aren't  
implementations, but they are using DFXP within Flash movie to  
display captions.  They use the Adobe component, not their own.   
There are others, like Subtitle Horse, Captionate, Hicaption, others  
that are more true implementations.  MAGpie implementation is the  
same as Adobe implementation except it has language support.

GF:  Will submit NCAM's chart next week.

GA:  Is there a spreadsheet online?

SH:  Not yet; just in e-mail and will be in member archives.  Will  
forward Andrew's version to member list.

AK:  Critical to support begin, end, dur for timing and will verify  
that Adobe can/cannot support it.

DK:  Will need info, contact details about new implementations.

AK:  Will talk to Automaticsync and Captionate and confirm details.   
Subtitle Horse... will look into their implementation.  Will  
investigate their implementation.  These tools target people who do  
Flash video, so they are probably targeting the Adobe subset of DFXP.

DK:  Check to see if they would participate in testing, running the  
test suite, reporting results, etc.

AK:  What does running the test suite mean?

DK:  e.g., display subtitles that have already been generated.

GA:  Would be useful to take an output and review or run them on a  
presentation processor, but that might not be useful.  Must be able  
to test DFXP generators, however.

SH:  Must generate valid DFXP, make sure it doesn't violate timing/ 
structural constraints.  Will be difficult to test generators.  Will  
need to discuss requirements on generating tools.

AK:  Another implementation to test:  JW player, Flash-based media  
player that supports DFXP.  They support a number of captioning types  
but does not use Adobe's component.

GA:  Re generation tools:  3.1 in spec would bear on any DFXP  
generator.  Should be a mechanism to discuss implementation or  
generators against 3.1.  Andrew's case of accepting non-valid DFXP  
would fail that test.

SH:  If non-valid DFXP is generated, it fails the test but what if a  
processor accepts it?  Is that an error?  It's the content-producer's  
problem if they generate invalid DFXP.

GA:  Some specs require processors to reject an invalid document.

SH:  HTML WG is moving that way.  We could say that the processor  
must reject invalid DFXP, or you can't claim conformance if you  
generate invalid DFXP.

GA:  Should document that and deal with in the future.

ACTION:  Everybody-- think about what happens regarding invalid DFXP  
from both generation and processing standpoints.

SH:  Geoff will upload NCAM's spreadsheet.  Sean still working on  
MSFT.  Can't get Subtitle Workshop to work.

DK:  Will try to get help.  Some people are using it, so it should work.

SH:  Will try using it again.

SH:  Where do we post spreadsheet?

DK:  I'll collate revisions and keep a master version to upload later.

ACTION:  David will keep and update master copy of spreadsheet.  Send  
all revisions to David.

PH:  Still working on test suite and will continue to do so.   
Checking on how comprehensively we've covered all features in the  
spreadsheet.  Will continue to do so.

SH:  At some point we must discuss how to populate the test  
database.  Still fairly small.

GA:  Over 50% of the features have tests, all content and style and  
most of timing have tests.  Missing TTP parameter set and metadata  
and <end>, timeContainer, textoutline, dynamicText and direction,  
etc.  Will create some additional tests for TTP and TTM and also  
placeholder test for unicodeBidi and dynamicText.

ACTION:  Glenn will create additional tests for items that currently  
have no implementations.

PH:  Let me refine my list first.

SH:  For example, how many tests do we need to prove that <color>  
actually works?  How can we determine how much to test each feature?

GA:  For those attributes that take on a set of token values, we've  
covered most of those.  Richer set of values will need bigger tests.

SH:  time value will need a lot more tests; other edge cases.

DK:  Is one test example sufficient?

SH:  For some; others not.  Must also consider feature combinations  
and interactions, which will need more tests.

DK:  What about high values in frames, will one example cover it?

SH:  May be sufficient.  Tried to express a time in many different  
ways as possible.  May have done 10 or 20 tests as an exercise already.

ACTION:  Sean will create a set of timing examples for the test suite.

SH:  Planning...  there's some movement from SMPTE caption group.   
Dick Bulterman has approached Sean about scheduling time for smilText  
discussion.  DB wants to discuss next week, if convenient.  after  
that, he's open.

ACTION:  Add smilText to agenda for 10/17.  Also 708 translation  
discussion on 10/17.

GA:  Mike Dolan would be a valuable contributor for 10/17 re 708  
discussion.

ACTION:  Sean will contact Mike Dolan to join 708 discussion next week.

PH:  Problem-- the +1 hour that we settled on earlier conflicts with  
the ISO text coordination group (?) teleconference time.  All WG  
chairs are supposed to attend that call every other week,

SH:  We must change our telecon time, then.

GA:  Could we change our telecon time every other week to accommodate?

GF:  How about we move to Thursday at 8:00am Eastern time?

GA:  How about 10:00am Eastern Thursday?

(general agreement)

SH:  New telecon time is now 10:00am/Eastern time 3:00/UK on  
Thursdays.  New telecon takes effect next week (October 16, 2008).

SH:  Would like to keep carrying forward discussion items from week  
to week but also discuss them on the list so they don't get lost.

(no objections).

SH:  Any other business?

(none)

end of call

**Note that the next call will be October 16 at 10:00am/eastern,  
3:00pm/UK, 7:00am/pacific.**

Received on Friday, 10 October 2008 14:26:30 UTC