- From: Nigel Megitt <nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk>
- Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2013 16:27:47 +0000
- To: Timed Text Working Group <public-tt@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CEB3E4F6.14CEF%nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk>
Minutes for 11/11/13 can be found at: http://www.w3.org/2013/11/11-tt-minutes.html
[1]W3C
[1] http://www.w3.org/
- DRAFT -
Timed Text Working Group Teleconference
11 Nov 2013
See also: [2]IRC log
[2] http://www.w3.org/2013/11/11-tt-irc
Attendees
Present
Taishan
Regrets
Chair
glenn
Scribe
nigel, pal
Contents
* [3]Topics
1. [4]TTML profiles
2. [5]profiles (continued)
3. [6]IMSC
* [7]Summary of Action Items
__________________________________________________________
<trackbot> Date: 11 November 2013
TTML profiles
<glenn>
[8]https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/ttml/raw-file/default/ttml2/design/TP
AC2013-TTMLProfiles.pdf
[8] https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/ttml/raw-file/default/ttml2/design/TPAC2013-TTMLProfiles.pdf
<nigel> scribeNick: nigel
glenn: describes TTML1 Profiles
... using slides from link above
... Nobody has actually used the "used" value to my knowledge.
... Instead people just used "required"
... to mean both supported and enabled.
pal: do we know in practice how many documents include profile
definitions inline?
glenn: no we don't know.
pal: sdp-us, cff-tt and ebu-tt don't.
nigel: can Profiles be combined when defined internally,
externally or any combination?
glenn: any combination
nigel: Are external references required to be resolved?
glenn: they 'should' be resolvable but it's not a mandatory
requirement
On the 'what's missing' slide
Profile Designator Proposal
Checking which issue or action is related to this problem
pal: creating an action for this
glenn: this designator is just a label, doesn't imply anything
about schemas etc
hello plh
pal: this binds the profile with this URI, unambiguously
nigel: it's clear for linking profiles with labels but it's
another different problem to define which profiles any
particular document conforms to.
glenn: all this designator attribute does is allows the profile
definition document to create a machine-readable label.
issue-297
<trackbot> issue-297 -- Include Profile Designator in Profile
Definition Document -- raised
<trackbot>
[9]http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/tracker/issues/297
[9] http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/tracker/issues/297
glenn: proposes that we complete these issues if there are no
objections by December 1st
<glenn> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: to adopt @designator attribute on
ttp:profile as described in presentation, to be finalized by
DEC5
issue-266
<trackbot> issue-266 -- add ability for instance documents to
declare what profile(s) it conforms to -- open
<trackbot>
[10]http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/tracker/issues/266
[10] http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/tracker/issues/266
On slide Content Profile Proposal (2) tt:root -> tt:tt
<glenn> s/tt:root/tt:tt/ in the presentation
<glenn> <ttp:profile type="content" use="ttml-full-content"/>
glenn: scope of ttp:validation is global for the whole
document, and all referenced profiles.
pal: can you type an example of what it would look like to
specify that a document conforms to multiple content profiles
simultaneously?
nigel: have added reference to this proposal on issue-266
<glenn> <tt ...>
<glenn> <head>
<glenn> <ttp:profile type="content"
use="content-profile-1.xml"/>
<glenn> <ttp:profile type="content"
use="content-profile-2.xml"/>
<glenn> </head>
<glenn> </tt>
pal: that satisfies the requirement for specifying multiple
conformant document content profiles.
glenn: there's another way too, a variant on it.
<glenn> <tt ...>
<glenn> <head>
<glenn> <ttp:profile type="content">
<glenn> <ttp:profile type="content"
use="content-profile-1.xml"/>
<glenn> <ttp:profile type="content"
use="content-profile-2.xml"/>
<glenn> </ttp:profile>
<glenn> </head>
<glenn> </tt>
glenn: this allows nested definitions of a content profile.
pal: Based on the use cases I've heard of this goes well beyond
the requirement.
... Can we document the reason behind the extra complexity?
<glenn> <tt ttp:profile="dfxp-presentation"/>
glenn: this is the current mechanism. It can only take one URI
not a list.
<glenn> <tt ttp:contentProfile="dfxp-presentation-content"/>
glenn: If we added a content profile that does something
similar then we couldn't have a list.
... By using the more advanced mechanism this could reference
multiple content profiles.
pal: have you considered extending the current mechanism to be
a list, which would be backward compatibility
glenn: it sounds like a reasonable extension.
... One argument is that it facilitates adding in the profile
features to the document.
... we often end up with multiple forms as shorthands, and this
does have associated cost
pal: what about the idea of 'if you use content profile or
profile attribute' you can't use the other.
glenn: we already have that in TTML1 in 5.2
group reviews current specification
glenn: it is currently well defined. The ttv verifier tool will
warn if both are present, or neither.
... I view the attribute as a shorthand for the element.
... 2 proposals. First is to allow profiles and profile
attributes to allow multiple designator.
... Second is to ensure that it's possible for a content
profile definition to proscribe use of the profile element
while requiring use of the profile attribute.
nigel: there's another issue in that people define profiles by
behaviour within text in a specification document not just as
ttml profile designators
pal: also interested in that.
glenn: are there any immediate objections?
nigel: this does appear to meet the needs of issue-266
glenn: this goes beyond as it adds validation semantics
nigel: we should be careful to avoid confusion in readers
between optional/required feature designators and the
validation action
<glenn> ACTION: glenn to consider also defining @validation on
ttp:profile, in addition to (override) tt:tt [recorded in
[11]http://www.w3.org/2013/11/11-tt-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-232 - Consider also defining
@validation on ttp:profile, in addition to (override) tt:tt [on
Glenn Adams - due 2013-11-18].
nigel: also we need to consider the validation scope - all
profiles or per profile?
glenn: may need a validation 'none' on per profile validation
to override
pal: what is the use case for requiring the processor to abort
or not upon failing validation of a document?
glenn: we have two categories: transformation and presentation.
Transformation processing is more likely to occur in a
pipeline.
... a validation node may be required, to cause TTML to be
removed from the pipeline on failure.
... Let's say a document is edited, e.g. features are added or
subtracted, perhaps invalidating it. If I'm an author and am
paranoid about ensuring profile compliance I may want to
specify validation abort
nigel: from a bbc perspective this is the sort of thing we'd
like to do.
glenn: from a verifier tool it's very useful for the content to
specify behaviour.
pal: the delta between the proposal in the powerpoint as
Content Profile Proposal (1) (2) and (3) is:
<glenn> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: to adopt Content Profile Proposal
(1-3) plus: (1) extend ttp:{profile,contentProfile} to take
list of designators; (2) allow use of @verification* on
ttp:profile; pending decision by DEC5
<glenn> no objections
group breaks for coffee
Plan to recommence at 11:15 china time, i.e. 7 minutes...
invite zakim
trackbot, this is ttml
<trackbot> Sorry, nigel, I don't understand 'trackbot, this is
ttml'. Please refer to
<[12]http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/irc> for help.
[12] http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/irc%3E
we've hung up the phone, will redial soon
<glenn> trackbot, start meeting
<trackbot> Meeting: Timed Text Working Group Teleconference
<trackbot> Date: 11 November 2013
profiles (continued)
issue-206
<trackbot> issue-206 -- Add ttp:profileCombination parameter --
open
<trackbot>
[13]http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/tracker/issues/206
[13] http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/tracker/issues/206
[14]http://www.w3.org/TR/ttml1/#parameter-vocabulary-profile
[14] http://www.w3.org/TR/ttml1/#parameter-vocabulary-profile
<glenn>
[15]https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/ttml/raw-file/default/ttml2/spec/ttm
l2.html
[15] https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/ttml/raw-file/default/ttml2/spec/ttml2.html
pal: what is the use case for profile combination?
nigel: not sure of any specific use case, but useful in the
TTML -> IMSC -> xyz scenario
glenn: this allows collisions between profiles to be resolved
more clearly
... as an implementor this allows parameterisation of the
behaviour better
... it's possible that we may introduce this now and find that
nobody uses it so we then remove it.
pal: argument against adding it now is the profile section of
the specification is already confusing for DECE and EBU.
... By adding features we may make it more complex and
introduce errors.
glenn: much of the confusion re profiles comes from
preconceptions.
nigel: suggests we have the possibility of restructuring the
documentation to add clarity
glenn: tech specs are not user guides. The spec should say the
minimum that makes it semantically clear.
pal: agrees with that perspective
glenn: in favour of editorial changes to help readers. The
driving factor is whether to use hidden parameters or make them
explicit.
... the combination methods right now are hidden parameters
encoded in prose.
... When we go through the TTML2 spec process, if there are no
implementations we may end up labelling features as at risk and
then removing them.
... It's easier to take things out than put things in. Like to
err on the side of putting in, if logically sound.
mark: customer feedback from target of the spec is 'confused'
so would be cautious about saying 'wrong assumptions' but to
address this in a customer-oriented way.
pal: open to see the output of the editing, which may be
clearer after refactoring than TTML1. Would hate it to get
worse.
glenn: agree with the principle of not adding complexity for
its own sake
... should we draft a proposal as per previously discussed
process?
nigel: yes
<glenn> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: to adopt Content Profile
combination proposals, subject to the DEC5 review period
glenn: Feature relation proposal
... example is #markerMode, #markerMode-continuous,
#markerMode-discontinuous
... could use the @restricts attribute to relate the smaller
features to the larger features.
... @extends allows extension features to extend existing ones.
... It would be useful to think about this when reviewing e.g.
IMSC to identify candidate features.
pal: have done this and have not found any.
... profiles can not define new features, only extensions. Can
profiles express a restriction on TTML?
glenn: if a profile defines an extension and says it restricts
an existing feature it can be expressed. Is that the right
mechanism?
pal: so when you capture that you'd put it both in the spec and
the profile definition?
glenn: yes.
pal: where would you specify it in the profile specification
(the content profile)?
glenn: to reuse the feature definitions in the context of
content profiles is to add text describing their meaning in a
content profile.
pal: assume we do that.
glenn: if you're in a content profile definition document, this
allows enumeration of features that must/may/may not be present
in the document.
pal: so you get to the feature that's restricted - how do you
declare that?
<pal> <feature value="required"
constrainedBy="[16]http://www.w3.org/ns/ttml/ww-profiles/featur
e#extent-region">#extent-region</extension>
[16] http://www.w3.org/ns/ttml/ww-profiles/feature#extent-region
glenn: you'd need to define a feature that is the complement of
the portion that is the restriction and then say use of the
complement is prohibited.
pal: intention is to say that the extent is restricted, but a
processor that supports unrestricted extent can still go ahead,
even if it doesn't know about the extension feature designation
... idea is to express still within the feature element.
glenn: we're talking about this in the context of a content
profile.
<pal> <feature value="allowed"
constrainedBy="[17]http://www.w3.org/ns/ttml/ww-profiles/featur
e#extent-region">#extent-region</extension>
[17] http://www.w3.org/ns/ttml/ww-profiles/feature#extent-region
glenn: so required means it must be present. What you're really
trying to say is that something is permitted.
<pal> <feature value="optional"
constrainedBy="[18]http://www.w3.org/ns/ttml/ww-profiles/featur
e#extent-region">#extent-region</extension>
[18] http://www.w3.org/ns/ttml/ww-profiles/feature#extent-region
glenn: this is therefore a no-op for any verifier.
... what you're trying to do is to prohibit a document from
expressing a value that goes out of the document.
... from the validation perspective optional doesn't help.
Suggest we take this offline and see if we can resolve it.
pal: can't see the value of this for IMSC
nigel: @restricts and @extends have almost opposite meanings
dependent on whether they're processor or content profile
features
... can we come up with different labels that don't have the
same connotations?
glenn: we can try to come up with better terms.
pal: was just trying to understand the intent.
glenn: raises the issue of what do content profiles mean? Is it
just for validation tools, or something that will be used.
... when you get to the presentation processor its too late in
most cases to do anything about it.
... happy to think further about this last proposal and table
it subject to further discussion.
<glenn> sense of the room: table feature relation proposal
subject to further offline discussion
will break for lunch now, return at 1:30
trackbot, start meeting
<trackbot> Meeting: Timed Text Working Group Teleconference
<trackbot> Date: 11 November 2013
<pal> @plh zakim seems to have no records of ttml meeting
<plh> we could create an ad-hoc call instead
<plh> that would do the trick for now
<plh> ok?
<glenn> yes
<plh> if I was correct, the room should be connected now
yes it is
<plh> the others should use this password
<scribe> chair: nigel
<scribe> scribeNick: pal
<scribe> agenda: ISSUE-285
nigel: mulitrowAlign is intended to allow the author to specify
alignement relative to the longest lign of a <p> without a
priori knowledge of line length
... would CSS flex box work
glenn: suggest creating an example based on CSS
... unless there is a mapping to CSS, a feature will likely be
ignored by OWP
... mapping to svg is a potential, but higher cost
<scribe> ACTION: glenn to reach out to CSS WG to understand
potential mappinp of multiRowAlign to CSS [recorded in
[19]http://www.w3.org/2013/11/11-tt-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-233 - Reach out to css wg to
understand potential mappinp of multirowalign to css [on Glenn
Adams - due 2013-11-18].
ISSUE-286
<trackbot> ISSUE-286 -- Extend the background area behind
rendered text to improve readability -- open
<trackbot>
[20]http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/tracker/issues/286
[20] http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/tracker/issues/286
nigel: adding padding at end of row improves legibility
glenn: CSS folks mentioned box-decoration-break as a possibiliy
ACTIOM: glenn to explore box-decoration-break in response to
ISSUE-286
<scribe> ACTION: glenn to explore box-decoration-break in
response to ISSUE-286 [recorded in
[21]http://www.w3.org/2013/11/11-tt-minutes.html#action03]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-234 - Explore box-decoration-break in
response to issue-286 [on Glenn Adams - due 2013-11-18].
glenn: <br> and white space as an alternative
nigel: undesirable since it mixes semantics and presentation
ISSUE-286: CSS folks mentioned box-decoration-break as a
possibiliy
<trackbot> Notes added to ISSUE-286 Extend the background area
behind rendered text to improve readability.
ISSUE-294
<trackbot> ISSUE-294 -- Style attribute to prevent overflow by
shrinking text to fit on a line -- raised
<trackbot>
[22]http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/tracker/issues/294
[22] http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/tracker/issues/294
nigel: "shrink-text-to-fit" is optimal option to ensure that
all text shows up
... "shrink-text-to-fit" is dormant issue in CSS
pal: all 3 options: dl fonts, "shrink-text-to-fit" and
reference fonts are not mutually exclusive
nigel: should TTML 2 support downloadable fonts
glenn: font height > font width usually so worse case line
width can be estimated
... it would be good to explore downloadable fonts
... CSS alows a URL to be associated with combination of font
family and style
... TTML 1 did not allow document to reference external
resources
<glenn> @font-face { font-family: FooBar; src:
url('[23]http://fonts.org/foobar.woff'); }
[23] http://fonts.org/foobar.woff');
<glenn> <p tts:fontFamily="FooBar">foo bar baz</p>
PROPOSAL: add support for downloadable fonts in TTML 2
<nigel> issue-273
<trackbot> issue-273 -- Map fontFamily to external font file
resources -- open
<trackbot>
[24]http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/tracker/issues/273
[24] http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/tracker/issues/273
ISSUE-273: TPAC 2013 PROPOSAL: add support for downloadable
fonts in TTML 2
<trackbot> Notes added to ISSUE-273 Map fontFamily to external
font file resources.
pal: not implementations will support downloadable fonts
... so downloadable fonts is not magic bullet therefore
nigel: add margins and reference fonts to delivery specs
... specify end-of-line allowance and reference fonts to
delivery specs
<nigel> nigel: (not in TTML2 - adding safety allowances is a
specification issue for clients commissioning subtitle
documents)
pal: different implementations will render the same font file
differently
... authors should use <br>
ISSUE-283: TPAC 2013 PROPOSAL: add informative text (e.g. to
Section 9.4) on controlling line breaks (see also issue-273 on
downloadable fonts)
<trackbot> Notes added to ISSUE-283 Deterministic text wrapping
and presentation.
<nigel> Breaking for 30 mins
ISSUE-288
<trackbot> ISSUE-288 -- Rules for splitting and accumulating
documents -- open
<trackbot>
[25]http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/tracker/issues/288
[25] http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/tracker/issues/288
nigel: presented EBU input document.
<scribe> ACTION: nigel to post EBU input document re: ISSUE-288
[recorded in
[26]http://www.w3.org/2013/11/11-tt-minutes.html#action04]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-235 - Post ebu input document re:
issue-288 [on Nigel Megitt - due 2013-11-18].
glenn: splitting and accumulating document should probably be
in a separate document
ISSUE-270
<trackbot> ISSUE-270 -- Appendix N assumption that root
temporal extent corresponds with the beginning of a related
media object -- open
<trackbot>
[27]http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/tracker/issues/270
[27] http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/tracker/issues/270
<scribe> ACTION: glenn to review consistent use of "Root
Temporal Extent" in both TTML 2 and TTML 1 SE [recorded in
[28]http://www.w3.org/2013/11/11-tt-minutes.html#action05]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-236 - Review consistent use of "root
temporal extent" in both ttml 2 and ttml 1 se [on Glenn Adams -
due 2013-11-18].
ACTION-236: See ISSUE-270
<trackbot> Notes added to ACTION-236 Review consistent use of
"root temporal extent" in both ttml 2 and ttml 1 se.
<nigel> chair: pal
<nigel> scribeNick: nigel
IMSC
issue-296
<trackbot> issue-296 -- Remove xml:lang placement restrictions
from IMSC -- raised
<trackbot>
[29]http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/tracker/issues/296
[29] http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/tracker/issues/296
plh, is richard ishida likely to be able to attend?
<plh> I thought we said Friday
issue-296: pal proposes removing the xml:lang constraint
<trackbot> Notes added to issue-296 Remove xml:lang placement
restrictions from IMSC.
plh, I didn't think we had. If he were around soon that'd be
handy as we're discussing IMSC
<plh> at what time would you ike Richard to be in the room?
<plh> ok, let me ask him
<plh> I can't locate him at the moment :(
glenn: opentype defines different rendering rules dependent on
language, script and feature.
... language is obtained from xml:lang
... many fonts have different rendering rules dependent on
language, e.g. arabic is used to express pashto, arabic and
other languages.
<scribe> ACTION: pal to review with CFF folk [recorded in
[30]http://www.w3.org/2013/11/11-tt-minutes.html#action06]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-237 - Review with cff folk [on
Pierre-Anthony Lemieux - due 2013-11-18].
issue-296: pal removes proposal to restrict xml:lang in IMSC
though may re-instate it depending on CFF response
<trackbot> Notes added to issue-296 Remove xml:lang placement
restrictions from IMSC.
glenn: line breaking algorithms also depend on xml:lang
issue-295
<trackbot> issue-295 -- Remove code point restrictions from
IMSC -- raised
<trackbot>
[31]http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/tracker/issues/295
[31] http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/tracker/issues/295
pal: looks like 3 separate issues.
... 1) Inference that IMSC limits character sets in
implementations
... This is a document suggestion not an implementation
restriction
glenn: this is defined in Unicode and is not in scope of TTML
... some languages require not just specific fonts but also
rendering rules that are not necessarily embedded in an
Opentype font, e.g. Indic.
... W3C i18n may have a view here.
<glenn> [32]http://www.w3.org/TR/its20/
[32] http://www.w3.org/TR/its20/
glenn: internationalisation work has been considered in
separate forums both within W3C and Unicode.
pal: this application is specific to subtitles and captions and
may therefore be slightly different.
issue-295: action on glenn and pierre to consult richard ishida
- is there a baseline to reference, or an external source?
<trackbot> Notes added to issue-295 Remove code point
restrictions from IMSC.
<scribe> ACTION: pal to follow up on issue-295 [recorded in
[33]http://www.w3.org/2013/11/11-tt-minutes.html#action07]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-238 - Follow up on issue-295 [on
Pierre-Anthony Lemieux - due 2013-11-18].
action-238
<trackbot> action-238 -- Pierre-Anthony Lemieux to Follow up on
issue-295 -- due 2013-11-18 -- OPEN
<trackbot>
[34]http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/tracker/actions/238
[34] http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/tracker/actions/238
issue-238
<trackbot> issue-238 -- smpte:backgroundImage -- open
<trackbot>
[35]http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/tracker/issues/238
[35] http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/tracker/issues/238
nigel: this is a significant divergence from the spatially
scalable nature of TTML independent of rendering plane
glenn: if we implement this we'll have to add specific profile
feature designators relating to particular image types e.g.
JPEG etc.
... and we'll need to add wording relating to usage, similar to
UAX14 line breaking wording - i.e. if needed do it like this.
... we should use a CSS-like syntax.
issue-238: proposal is to add functionality equivalent to smpte
backgroundImage and define profile feature designators for
baseline feature and image format types. Also describe usage
expectations.
<trackbot> Notes added to issue-238 smpte:backgroundImage.
issue-179
<trackbot> issue-179 -- Interpreting the pixel measure -- open
<trackbot>
[36]http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/tracker/issues/179
[36] http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/tracker/issues/179
nigel: it's problematic to relate pixels to related media
objects as there may be none or multiple with different
resolutions.
glenn: there's an even bigger problem in that the existing
definition of pixels doesn't relate to media objects at all.
... it's defined via TTML 1 8.3.9 as per XSL 1.1 5.9.13 which
uses the same language as CSS
... there's been some work in CSS on units and measures
<glenn>
[37]http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css-values/#absolute-lengths
[37] http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css-values/#absolute-lengths
glenn: we could state that pixels define a logical coordinate
space with a mapping into device coordinates
... we could define a mechanism for defining that
transformation
... In SVG there's a viewbox attribute that defines the
coordinates
nigel: MPEG states that the track header box in BMFF should
have the same resolution as the root extent
glenn: wants time to craft a proposed response. Thinking about
using the SVG model of logical coordinate space.
... When we define an extent on the root now that effectively
defines a viewbox already so the change may be simple.
... There's extra on SVG in terms of mapping to aspect ratio
etc
... we can say if you use pixels and define extent then it
means X and if you use pixels without defining extent then it
means Y.
... and make a strong recommendation.
Summary of Action Items
[NEW] ACTION: glenn to consider also defining @validation on
ttp:profile, in addition to (override) tt:tt [recorded in
[38]http://www.w3.org/2013/11/11-tt-minutes.html#action01]
[NEW] ACTION: glenn to explore box-decoration-break in response
to ISSUE-286 [recorded in
[39]http://www.w3.org/2013/11/11-tt-minutes.html#action03]
[NEW] ACTION: glenn to reach out to CSS WG to understand
potential mappinp of multiRowAlign to CSS [recorded in
[40]http://www.w3.org/2013/11/11-tt-minutes.html#action02]
[NEW] ACTION: glenn to review consistent use of "Root Temporal
Extent" in both TTML 2 and TTML 1 SE [recorded in
[41]http://www.w3.org/2013/11/11-tt-minutes.html#action05]
[NEW] ACTION: nigel to post EBU input document re: ISSUE-288
[recorded in
[42]http://www.w3.org/2013/11/11-tt-minutes.html#action04]
[NEW] ACTION: pal to follow up on issue-295 [recorded in
[43]http://www.w3.org/2013/11/11-tt-minutes.html#action07]
[NEW] ACTION: pal to review with CFF folk [recorded in
[44]http://www.w3.org/2013/11/11-tt-minutes.html#action06]
[End of minutes]
__________________________________________________________
Minutes formatted by David Booth's [45]scribe.perl version
1.138 ([46]CVS log)
$Date: 2013-11-11 10:17:03 $
__________________________________________________________
[45] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
[46] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/
Scribe.perl diagnostic output
[Delete this section before finalizing the minutes.]
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.138 of Date: 2013-04-25 13:59:11
Check for newer version at [47]http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/
scribe/
[47] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/
Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00)
WARNING: Bad s/// command: s/tt:root/tt:tt/ in the presentation
Succeeded: s/issue-288/issue-270/
Succeeded: s/nigel/glenn/
Succeeded: s/issue-270/issue-288/
Succeeded: s/opentext/opentype/
Found ScribeNick: nigel
Found ScribeNick: pal
Found ScribeNick: nigel
Inferring Scribes: nigel, pal
Scribes: nigel, pal
ScribeNicks: nigel, pal
WARNING: Replacing list of attendees.
Old list: +1.617.766.aaaa Taishan
New list: Taishan [Adobe]
WARNING: Replacing list of attendees.
Old list: Taishan [Adobe]
New list: Taishan
Default Present: Taishan
Present: Taishan
WARNING: Fewer than 3 people found for Present list!
Found Date: 11 Nov 2013
Guessing minutes URL: [48]http://www.w3.org/2013/11/11-tt-minutes.html
People with action items: glenn nigel pal
[48] http://www.w3.org/2013/11/11-tt-minutes.html
End of [49]scribe.perl diagnostic output]
[49] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
----------------------------
http://www.bbc.co.uk
This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and may contain personal views which are not the views of the BBC unless specifically stated.
If you have received it in error, please delete it from your system.
Do not use, copy or disclose the information in any way nor act in reliance on it and notify the sender immediately.
Please note that the BBC monitors e-mails sent or received.
Further communication will signify your consent to this.
---------------------
Received on Thursday, 21 November 2013 16:28:22 UTC