- From: Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2009 17:49:00 -0500
- To: public-tt@w3.org
Available at http://www.w3.org/2009/01/23-tt-minutes.html Text version: Timed Text Working Group Teleconference 23 Jan 2009 Attendees Present Philippe, Glenn, John, Sean, David, Franz Regrets Andrew Chair Sean Scribe Philippe Contents * [3]Topics 1. [4]ISSUE-3 2. [5]ISSUE-5 3. [6]ISSUE-4 4. [7]ISSUE-6 5. [8]ISSUE-7 6. [9]ISSUE-8 7. [10]ISSUE-10 8. [11]ISSUE-11 9. [12]ISSUE-18 10. [13]ISSUE-19 11. [14]ISSUE-20 12. [15]ISSUE-26 13. [16]ISSUE-27 14. [17]Next steps 15. [18]Namespace style * [19]Summary of Action Items _________________________________________________________ ISSUE-3 Sean: we have 2 yes, 2 no ... the goal was to required the ttm: namespace elements to be nested Glenn: I believe they should be allowed outside the metadata elements Sean: the reason for this to come up: it's just easier if all the metadata is in one place ... having it all over the place makes it more complex Glenn: the rationale was to support farm metadata as well. Sean: because the metadata element is called "metadata", I assumed that all metadata will go there Glenn: part of the reasons for having the metadata element was to support transformation processor to group metadata ... ie having some grouping mechanisms ... if a transformation combines metadata from two sources into one source ... it might group them by origin in the result document Sean: it's not about having the metadata grouping element ... if title is metadata, they should be in the metadata element ... if not, then it should be moved out of the metadata namespace Glenn: it creates work to make a change now and it doesn't seem a significant issue to change now Sean: that's a cognitive issue. I'd expect to find all the metadata would be in the metadata element ... how much work is it to move title out of the metadata namespace or within the metadata element Glenn: probably not that complex. change in the schema. that's substantive change, but it wouldn't be that difficult David: I don't have a strong feeling one way or the other ... if we're going to put title in ttm, we identified it as metadata already, why moving it into metadata? Sean: since no one feels strongly, let's leave as-is ISSUE-5 Sean: ISSUE-3 was about more than one metadata element, and ISSUE-5 is about direct children Resolution: ISSUE-3 and ISSUE-5 closed without change unless Geoff objects. ISSUE-4 Resolution: we should allow the ttm attributes on the region element ACTION: Glenn to allow ttm attributes on the region element [recorded in [20]http://www.w3.org/2009/01/23-tt-minutes.html#action01] ISSUE-6 Sean: the idea here is that we define fixed set of roles and if we want to extend, we would need to add values ... agent is fairly complicated structure and you can point to that ... having a role element would allow the same ... there is no user defined role in the spec Glenn: there is an extension mechanism. Resolution: close ISSUE-6 without changes David: peharps we could simplify the actors as well... Glenn: are you suggesting a ttm:actor attribute? David: yes, ttm:agent is an IDREF that has to refer to the agent element Sean: should we wait on this and revisit issue-6 later? ... let's keep close and reopen it later if necessary ISSUE-7 Sean: we inherited it from SMIL. that's the only abbrev form we have Glenn: we have an appendix that describe where our vocabulary comes from ... ttm:desc comes from svg:desc Sean: why from svg? Glenn: we took a couple from them: metadata, set, desc, title comes from SVG ... for the attributes, we referenced SMIL for some of them Sean: I prefer to have full word when we can ... it would be cleaner to have a full word David: don't have a strong feeling. it's easier if it's full word ... in this case, it's in metadata namespace. Glenn: SMIL, SMIL and XHTML are all consistent in using desc Resolution: ISSUE-7 is closed with no change ISSUE-8 skipped (needs Geoff around) ISSUE-10 skipped (needs Geoff around) Glenn: who proposed it? Sean: I did Glenn: we made design choice not to allow linking to external media ... we had a long discussion about that a while ago, fonts, images, audio, ... we decided we did not want that Sean: I'm doing it in a private namespace right now, so not an issue Resolution: ISSUE-10 is postponed to v.next ISSUE-11 Resolution: we'll make the change ACTION: Glenn to fix inconsistency with regard to time container defaults [recorded in [21]http://www.w3.org/2009/01/23-tt-minutes.html#action01] ISSUE-18 Glenn: I could add an editorial note to clarify the semantic from SMIL ACTION: Glenn add an editorial note to clarify the semantic from SMIL for dur and end [recorded in [22]http://www.w3.org/2009/01/23-tt-minutes.html#action02] ISSUE-19 Resolution: ISSUE-19 closed. no change. ISSUE-20 David: that seems late to make a change now Sean: we may reopne them if it's a major problem ... happy to postpone to v.next. ditto for ISSUE-21, ISSUE-22, ISSUE-23, ISSUE-24, ISSUE-25 ACTION: Philippe to foward CEA communication to the list, if ok [recorded in [23]http://www.w3.org/2009/01/23-tt-minutes.html#action03] Sean: check to make sure it's ok to make it public ISSUE-26 Glenn: [...] it's specified in the definition of overflow in the spec ... [citing the spec] Sean: we will remove that if we don't have dynamic flow? Glenn: yes Resolution: ISSUE-26 is closed. no change. ISSUE-27 Glenn: we have some inconsistency indeed with XSL... ... looks like we tried to make it more consistent with naming instead of XSL Sean: everybody said we should be consistent with XSL or we should document why not Glenn: I'm happy to make it consistent with XSL Resolution: ISSUE-27 to make it consistent with XSL (already done) Next steps Philippe: I'll look into creating a new questionnaire with new issues Namespace style Philippe: we have a namespace inconsistency between the Adobe implementation and the latest version of spec (November 2006). Glenn: we never fixed the namespace in the spec Philippe: other groups usually fix it at CR by respect for implementators, unless they make significant changes during CR. Sean: we can be lenient for now in the test suite and fix it later. Our immediate goal is to test the features. Philippe: ok. as long as we demonstrate interop at the end of CR, i'm ok to be lenient for now. I'll use the namespace supported by Adobe and WGBH in the tests for now. For end of CR, we have 3 choices: keep the Adobe one, use the November 2006 one, or get a new one. For the new one, we could use a short version for namespace btw, e.g. [24]http://www.w3.org/ns/dfxp. It's easier to remember since you don't have year/month. [24] http://www.w3.org/ns/dfxp Sean: would very much like to switch to that indeed Resolution: we'll use a short namespace (ie no year/month) by the end of CR. Namespaces will remain a moving target for now. [adjourned] Summary of Action Items [NEW] ACTION: Glenn add an editorial note to clarify the semantic from SMIL for dur and end [recorded in [25]http://www.w3.org/2009/01/23-tt-minutes.html#action02] [NEW] ACTION: Glenn to fix inconsistency with regard to time container defaults [recorded in [26]http://www.w3.org/2009/01/23-tt-minutes.html#action01] [NEW] ACTION: Philippe to foward CEA communication to the list [recorded in [27]http://www.w3.org/2009/01/23-tt-minutes.html#action03] [End of minutes]
Received on Monday, 26 January 2009 22:49:36 UTC