- From: Michael A Dolan <md.1@newtbt.com>
- Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2009 10:54:59 -0800
- To: public-tt@w3.org
David and all- The Friday timeslot is generally not good for me, so I can't make these calls very often - nearly standing regrets, I'm afraid. But don't take that as not being interested in the work. Regarding 708, last November I got CEA to prepare an outbound liaison to W3C providing some guidance on the "sweet spot" of the spec to focus on. But I can't find that it was ever sent to Philippe or that it was circulated here. I'll follow up. Mike At 05:12 PM 1/16/2009 +0000, David Kirby wrote: >Timed-text working group minutes 16 January 2009 > > >Present: >David Kirby (DK, co-chair, scribe) >Sean Hayes (SH, co-chair) >Geoff Freed (GF) >Andrew Kirkpatrick (AK) >Glenn Adams (GA) >Philippe le Hegaret (PH) via irc > >Regrets: >John Birch >Frans De Jong > > >Minutes from call >PH: Awaiting implementations from AK and SH; this is starting to get >in the way of progress. >AK: sorting out our implementation has been delayed; hope to have it >ready today. >SH: should have the Microsoft implementation ready by end of Feb. > >GF: Some questions arising - bidi-override and direction - are these >both needed? >GA: Yes, bidi-override and direction are independent parameters and >both are required for Hebrew and Arabic text. To be consistent with >W3C translation of Unicode to XML we need both parameters. > >GF: For consistency with CEA 708, in earlier discussion said we need >some features... >AK: for example, borders on regions... >GF: I'm undecided as to whether we really need to hold up the >process in order to include these in DFXP. >AK: I'm wondering about that too - does any manufacturer use this? >SH: this goes back to the discussion as to whether we should be able >to round-trip 708. It's not definitely needed in DFXP, but we should >check that the lack of some of these features from 708 isn't going >to be a problem. >GF: region transparancy/fading falls into this category >GA: for fading, if it really is needed, we have a way of doing it >now [using set??] so nothing needs to be added. >GF: Unsure about demand for some of these 708 features in US; >possibly not really needed at the moment. > >GA: Looking at Q4 of issues questionaire - metadata already seems to >be supported on regions. >SH: metadata data attributes allowed there but not elements >GA: OK > >DK: Re Q6, some of the test files appear to use ttm:descr rather >than ttm:desc - is that correct? >SH: Philippe fixed those earlier; they should be ttm:desc. >DK: Looking at timing tests just emailed by Sean, at least one of >them seems to use ttm:descr. >SH: May have sent earlier versions to list; will check. > >DK: Re ttm:actor - this isn't included in tests yet as unclear on >exactly how it is to be used. >GA: ttm:actor links a real agent, e.g. Sean Connery, to a fictional >one, e.g. "James Bond". Will send example to the list for discussion. >DK: It seems to be conveying details that could be carried as an >attribute of ttm:agent and this may be an easier way to do it. Will >consider this more once example is available via list. > >SH: can Philippe add a text box to the questionaire, where it says >"Needs discussion" >GA: suggest this be a separate field to allow comments whatever the answer. >[DK - request forwarded to PH via IRC just after the call - and done >by Philippe before I managed to get these minutes out!] > >GA: report progress on editing of revised Rec - changes to >tts:extent finished, work on default region is underway. Will also >add "requiredFeatures" and those related elements, as previously >discussed, as editor's notes for consideration. Updated spec should >be available sometime next week. > >GA: Note that Q19 (throughLine or lineThrough) has already been >fixed as it was really a typo. > >[Call ends]
Received on Friday, 16 January 2009 18:56:28 UTC