- From: Nigel Megitt <nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk>
- Date: Thu, 1 May 2014 15:08:58 +0000
- To: Timed Text Working Group <public-tt@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CF882121.1D0AE%nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk>
Available at http://www.w3.org/2014/05/01-tt-minutes.html
[1]W3C
[1] http://www.w3.org/
- DRAFT -
Timed Text Working Group Teleconference
01 May 2014
See also: [2]IRC log
[2] http://www.w3.org/2014/05/01-tt-irc
Attendees
Present
Mike, pal, nigel, glenn, Plh, jdsmith
Regrets
Europe
Chair
nigel
Scribe
nigel
Contents
* [3]Topics
1. [4]IMSC FPWD
2. [5]Issue discussed over the past week
3. [6]Action Item overdue and due next week
4. [7]F2F in September
5. [8]MPEG liaison re MIME Codecs parameter
* [9]Summary of Action Items
__________________________________________________________
<trackbot> Date: 01 May 2014
<scribe> scribeNick: nigel
IMSC FPWD
nigel: We published the FPWD today
pal: the Latest version link doesn't work yet
plh: that's because it hasn't been officially published yet -
the dated version does work, the latest will work later in the
day
[10]http://www.w3.org/2014/03/timed-text-charter.html
[10] http://www.w3.org/2014/03/timed-text-charter.html
pal: Next step for IMSC is to collect comments and set a goal
for LC based on level of comment received.
... In parallel let's work on IMSC2 based on the progress in
TTML2
... The faster we move through IMSC1 the sooner we'll be able
to put emphasis on IMSC2.
... Is it reasonable to set a target for LC for end of May?
mike: I'll make SMPTE and DECE aware of this.
nigel: I'll make EBU aware.
... Suggest we review the level of comments received in 2 weeks
and assess the feasibility of an end of May LC then (on the
15th May)
Issue discussed over the past week
Issue-299?
<trackbot> Issue-299 -- dur must be greater than zero --
pending review
<trackbot>
[11]http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/tracker/issues/299
[11] http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/tracker/issues/299
nigel: Would Glenn be able to contact Dick Bulterman re the
reasoning behind 0 dur prohibition in SMIL?
glenn: yes, I will do that.
... On the other point re "willfully violated" I think we
should stay with the same language as in HTML which has been
extensively used in quite a few
... specifications, so it would be consistent to stay with it.
... we refer to SMIL normatively for the semantics but not the
syntax so we could argue that we may define 0 to be permitted
for dur in TTML syntax.
... However this could create some confusion on the part of
readers if there is a discrepancy between them. We were silent
on this in TTML 1 and did not discuss it previously.
plh: Re "willful" I would agree with nigel that it has negative
connotations.
nigel: That's my argument too - my suggestion is "deliberately"
in place of "willfully"
glenn: I notice that in TTML1 we use this phrase "without
taking into account any semantics defined by this
specification". I could try to reword it to make
... clear that we are overriding the semantics.
RESOLUTION: We will avoid the term "willful violation" in our
documents.
issue-304?
<trackbot> issue-304 -- Non-standard unqualified attributes not
permitted -- open
<trackbot>
[12]http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/tracker/issues/304
[12] http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/tracker/issues/304
action-285?
<trackbot> action-285 -- Glenn Adams to Implement proposed
errata in issue-304 -- due 2014-05-01 -- OPEN
<trackbot>
[13]http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/tracker/actions/285
[13] http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/tracker/actions/285
Action Item overdue and due next week
glenn: I do plan to use the same namespace in TTML2 as we used
in TTML1. We did specifically specify the namespace in TTML1 to
be mutable.
pal: I don't recall where that action idea came from but the
discussion raises in my mind re actual implementation. Do we
know what existing implementations
... will do if they find an attribute that they don't recognise
in a namespace that they do recognise? Do we have any practical
data points on this?
glenn: I don't know of any research to give an answer to this.
pal: Not having to define a new namespace is a really good idea
but the assumption around disruption of existing
implementations is of potential concern.
... I'm not sure there's much action to do other than to ask
the question. If no objections we should go with the current
plan. It's possible that introducing a new namespace will be
more disruptive.
glenn: Agree with the point about introducing a new namespace.
... The processing rules would expose new names in the
namespace to the processor. In the DFXP Viewer programme we
coded it to effectively test for errors in the attributes that
were used
... but I don't believe we did anything to reject the document.
It was an informational warning. It's possible that if I fire
that up with a TTML2 document with new attributes in the
existing
... namespaces it may raise a warning. I haven't checked all
the other implementations.
... TTML2 §4 also provides some wording on this.
... We may want to elaborate on that wording in TTML2 and add
an errata to TTML1 to deal with this, but perhaps that's a
different action item.
action-275: Closing as per discussion today, on the basis that
we will extend the existing namespace and follow up with
enhanced wording to §4 in a separate action.
<trackbot> Notes added to action-275 Review issues in cp12 and
if one is needed for handling new attributes in ttml2 in same
namespace as ttml1 then raise it, and link to issue-286..
close action-275
<trackbot> Closed action-275.
<scribe> ACTION: glenn to elaborate on wording in §4 on
namespace extension in TTML2 and as an errata to TTML1
[recorded in
[14]http://www.w3.org/2014/05/01-tt-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-287 - Elaborate on wording in §4 on
namespace extension in ttml2 and as an errata to ttml1 [on
Glenn Adams - due 2014-05-08].
F2F in September
action-281?
<trackbot> action-281 -- Nigel Megitt to Talk to frans about
hosting a meeting -- due 2014-04-24 -- PENDINGREVIEW
<trackbot>
[15]http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/tracker/actions/281
[15] http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/tracker/actions/281
nigel: A room of up to 60 people has been reserved at EBU in
Geneva on 16th and 17th September for us to use for this face
to face meeting.
close action-281
<trackbot> Closed action-281.
nigel: The goal of this F2F is to work on our charter
deliverable of a WebVTT <--> TTML mapping
MPEG liaison re MIME Codecs parameter
action-283?
<trackbot> action-283 -- Nigel Megitt to And dsinger to respond
to mpeg liaison -- due 2014-05-01 -- PENDINGREVIEW
<trackbot>
[16]http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/tracker/actions/283
[16] http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/tracker/actions/283
close action-283
<trackbot> Closed action-283.
mike: In MPEG a couple of weeks ago the DASH group asked for
some help with the codecs parameter. We decided that W3C should
manage this with respect to TTML and WebVTT in particular.
... MPEG meets every 3-4 months and not much happens in between
meetings. This means that the response will not be until 2nd or
3rd week July.
... However the intent is that W3C takes ownership of this
issue so we can act on this more quickly.
... Technically, there's a missing requirement. We need to
indicate the presence of other namespaces since most profiles
support foreign namespaces.
... I don't think it's a fundamental problem but we need to
reconsider the labels to identify namespaces not profiles.
... On the second point the 4C code needs to be defined too
[minutes incomplete]
glenn: I don't agree with Mike's point about namespaces. So we
need to discuss this more.
mike: The MPEG group's intention was to signal namespaces.
... We can also do what we do in TTML2 with the document
content profile but the codec string folk in the File Format
group of MPEG felt that string would be too cumbersome and
long.
... I agree with you that we should consider that mechanism.
glenn: Is the purpose of this to define what is required by the
decoder or is it to define what the content adheres to?
mike: the latter, what the content adheres to.
... The way this works in DASH is that the manifest describes
the content that is available and the decoder selects the best
resources for its capabilities.
glenn: That describes a processor profile not a related content
profile.
mike: I can see that point of view. The important thing is to
provide an unambiguous identifier which is not too long a
string.
glenn: If we assume that we can discuss and get folks to agree
on profile designations, possibly a list of them, then it's
simply a matter of creating short names to link to those
... profile designation URIs.
mike: I like it. We should talk about mapping it through to the
mechanism we've already designed.
nigel: when the page has been created I will add a section on
meaning and endorsement.
glenn: I've already got some prior work I can reuse for that.
mike: Additional to the short name and URI should we also
encourage a resolvable link to the definition?
glenn: Yes we should encourage that and a reference to the
specification.
mike: short name, profile URI, profile document URL,
specification URL, schema/electronic representation URL would
be a good set of columns.
... Everything after the short name and profile URI is
encouraged but optional.
<scribe> ACTION: nigel to create issue for codecs parameter
[recorded in
[17]http://www.w3.org/2014/05/01-tt-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-288 - Create issue for codecs
parameter [on Nigel Megitt - due 2014-05-08].
Summary of Action Items
[NEW] ACTION: glenn to elaborate on wording in §4 on namespace
extension in TTML2 and as an errata to TTML1 [recorded in
[18]http://www.w3.org/2014/05/01-tt-minutes.html#action01]
[NEW] ACTION: nigel to create issue for codecs parameter
[recorded in
[19]http://www.w3.org/2014/05/01-tt-minutes.html#action02]
[End of minutes]
__________________________________________________________
Minutes formatted by David Booth's [20]scribe.perl version
1.138 ([21]CVS log)
$Date: 2014-05-01 15:06:17 $
__________________________________________________________
[20] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
[21] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/
----------------------------
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, 1 May 2014 15:08:51 UTC