- From: Nigel Megitt <nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk>
- Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2014 16:17:29 +0000
- To: Timed Text Working Group <public-tt@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <D0814E9A.159BD%nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk>
Thanks all for attending today's TTWG Meeting. Minutes are available in HTML format at http://www.w3.org/2014/11/06-tt-minutes.html
We made one resolution today:
RESOLUTION: We will submit IMSC 1 to ITU-R Working Party 6B for information by 10th November.
The review period for this resolution ends on 20th November according to our Decision Policy, however this is 10 days after the date by which the action needs to be completed. Therefore please notify me of any objections by 10th November 0800 UTC in this case.
Text format minutes:
[1]W3C
[1] http://www.w3.org/
Timed Text Working Group Teleconference
06 Nov 2014
See also: [2]IRC log
[2] http://www.w3.org/2014/11/06-tt-irc
Attendees
Present
jdsmith, pal, courtney, Frans, nigel, Thierry
Regrets
glenn, andreas, mdolan, cyril
Chair
nigel
Scribe
nigel
Contents
* [3]Topics
1. [4]This meeting
2. [5]IMSC 1 review comments
3. [6]Incoming Liaisons
4. [7]Action Items
5. [8]Issues raised
6. [9]Future meetings
* [10]Summary of Action Items
__________________________________________________________
<trackbot> Date: 06 November 2014
This meeting
<scribe> scribeNick: nigel
IMSC 1 review comments
[11]https://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/34314/WD-ttm
l-imsc1-20140930/
[11] https://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/34314/WD-ttml-imsc1-20140930/
pal: I've proposed a resolution on all the comments, so I can
walk through them and point out the document edits
... LC-2983
... No actionable comments. Thanking DVB for input would be
appropriate.
<scribe> ACTION: pal Thank DVB for input re LC-2983 [recorded
in [12]http://www.w3.org/2014/11/06-tt-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-348 - Thank dvb for input re lc-2983
[on Pierre-Anthony Lemieux - due 2014-11-13].
pal: LC-2982
... I've added Example 4 as a code example for Forced Content.
<pal>
[13]http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/Guide2LCtracker/overview.ht
ml
[13] http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/Guide2LCtracker/overview.html
pal: I propose moving LC-2982 to pending for review by the
group in the next week, then moving to resolved prior to
sending out.
tmichel: Yes, once we have the resolution from the WG then I or
Nigel can send the response back to the commenter.
pal: In this case we could move directly to Resolved-yes, but
maybe giving the group a week to resolve it and move to Pending
in the meantime.
nigel: Yes please, move it to Pending.
pal: Doing that.
... LC-2975
... I thought I'd replaced all of 'subtitle document' with the
TTML1 defined term 'Document Instance' - it turns out maybe
not.
... I've added the defined term Document Instance too.
... I've found the two instances, fixing right now.
<scribe> ... done.
pal: That'll be corrected next time I commit to trunk.
nigel: I think that'll fix it.
pal: LC-2976
... I've revised section 5.1 to add "The method by which this
association is made is left to each application."
group: seems happy with that.
pal: Moving that one to Pending.
... LC-2968 - we covered this at TPAC already and there's
already a proposed resolution.
... I added an informative note on section 8.3 explaining how
it can be done in TTML1 using multiple regions.
... LC-2973
... There were really two comments here. Firstly, trying to
clarify what a conforming processor should do with foreign
namespaces attributes and elements.
... Secondly that the specification did not forbid the
introduction of new elements and attributes in the IMSC
namespace outside W3C.
... In §6.3 I've added a paragraph to replicate TTML1 to state
that the namespace is mutable and reserved by W3C for future
expansion.
... I also added in §6.2 the same prose as in TTML1 to say that
a document may contain elements and attributes that are neither
... specifically permitted nor forbidden by a profile
jdsmith: So the implication is you would tolerate extra
attributes?
pal: That's right - the intent is to replicate what was in
TTML1. Andreas's concern was that 'ignore' for a transformation
... processor isn't clear - does it mean 'remove' or 'keep and
do nothing'?
nigel: It's possibly not clear what a processor should do if it
encounters a non-IMSC element or attribute.
... Perhaps the language from TTML1 §3.2.1 Generic Processor
Performance should be brought in (3rd list item).
pal: That's already brought in by reference.
... I think Andreas's issue was the term 'ignore' which might
be considered to force processors to drop such entities.
jdsmith: This seems subtle but complete when you consider the
TTML1 references.
pal: Marking as pending.
nigel: Andreas has an opportunity to verify this.
pal: LC-2977 Forced Display.
... The first part of the comment is that not all combinations
of values are described. I've added a sentence to the second
... paragraph to cover other combinations.
... The second part of the comment is about improving the note
by pointing out it only applies to non-transparent background.
... My take on this is that the note doesn't only apply in that
case. Unless we're absolutely certain then I'm concerned about
... making it too narrow.
nigel: I think possibly padding could apply, but as written the
comment is accurate I believe. It's still reasonable to make
... no change given how specific that circumstance is, and to
respond to the commenter that this is our decision.
pal: I've slightly changed the wording of the note in the
editor's draft to make it a bit easier to read.
... The biggest edit is a reference back to TTML1 to describe
the circumstances in which this applies.
nigel: We could respond that 'While technically the note may
only apply when a non-transparent background is applied to a
region the intent has a broader applicability, to warn
authors...'
pal: I'm updating it now.
... Also marking as pending.
... LC-2978 altText
... I added a document convention section to reference the
conventions used in TTML1 for specifying styling attributes and
XML elements.
... That should satisfy the commenter.
nigel: There's a reader-friendliness question whether it's okay
to refer to another document just for document conventions, but
normatively this does address the comment.
pal: So much of this document is dependent on TTML1 that the
reader needs to be aware of TTML1 anyway.
... Marking as pending.
... LC-2979
... Constraints on the #timing feature. The text previously
said "The same syntax of #clock-time or #offset-time should be
used throughout the subtitle document."
... I read the comment from the commenter on what this means to
use the same syntax.
... I tried to be more specific here in this revision by
stating that: "A Document Instance should use either the
offset-time or offset-time syntax for all time expressions used
therein."
... Oh I see there's a typo here. This should read: "A Document
Instance should use either the clock-time or offset-time syntax
for all time expressions used therein."
... This is just to make it easier for instance documents to
read.
nigel: I'm not sure how this addresses Andreas's question.
pal: They would all be examples of clock time syntax so they
would be the same syntax.
... The revised text tries to be more specific.
nigel: As written this doesn't require that all time
expressions must use the same syntax throughout the document.
... How about:
... "All time expressions within a Document Instance should use
the same syntax, either clock-time or offset-time."
pal: Looks fine to me.
... I'm making the change and will make it Pending after
committing.
... LC-2974 #length-cell
... #length-cell was forbidden but that conflicted with
ebutts:linePadding which uses length-cell. So I've updated the
... constraint to make an exception for ebutts:linePadding.
... Marking as pending.
... LC-2980 default Region
... I've now made this a defined term pointing back to TTML1's
definition.
... Marking as pending.
... LC-2981 Reference fonts
... This is text we hadn't touched for a while so it prompted
me to go into this deeper. The intent was really not so much
... to mandate a processor behaviour but to ensure that the
document is authored using those reference fonts when
applicable.
... Of course a presentation processor can choose whether or
not to use those reference fonts.
... I've pulled out Reference Fonts from the HRM - the HRM is
now only about document constraints.
... I've moved Reference Fonts to the Text Profile sections.
... This reads as a requirement on the authored document.
nigel: This doesn't actually require that text doesn't overflow
the region even when laid out using the reference font metrics.
pal: That's an authorial decision - if the author wants to
overflow that choice is available.
... The next step if we want to be stronger is to make it a
normative requirement on presentation processors.
... That's the comment.
nigel: I'd made the same misreading.
pal: It's not entirely clear in CFF-TT. An implementor reading
this and implementing a presentation processor would be
... ill-advised not to use the metrics of the reference fonts
because otherwise the document will not look like the author
... intended.
nigel: The problem is that any test written against this spec
text would have nothing to check.
pal: If there's any doubt here then I'd rather make it a
presentation processor requirement to make it crystal clear and
adopt
... what the commenter suggested, and be prescriptive on
processors.
nigel: I think we need a good review period on this since it
could be viewed as a substantive change by some readers.
pal: I'll make the edit as suggested by the commenter and set
it to pending, and we can discuss it next week.
... For all the other ones that are marked pending can we ask
the group to review and we can mark any with no comments
... as resolved.
nigel: I think so, yes.
Incoming Liaisons
nigel: We have an MPEG liaison and one from ITU-R Working Party
6B
[14]http://www.itu.int/en/ITU-R/study-groups/rsg6/rwp6b/Pages/d
efault.aspx
[14] http://www.itu.int/en/ITU-R/study-groups/rsg6/rwp6b/Pages/default.aspx
nigel: ITU has requested that IMSC be submitted before 10th
November. Any objections to submitting it for information.
RESOLUTION: We will submit IMSC 1 to ITU-R Working Party 6B for
information by 10th November.
<scribe> ACTION: nigel submit IMSC 1 to ITU-R Working Party 6B
by 10th November [recorded in
[15]http://www.w3.org/2014/11/06-tt-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-349 - Submit imsc 1 to itu-r working
party 6b by 10th november [on Nigel Megitt - due 2014-11-13].
pal: I can assist if need be.
Action Items
action-341?
<trackbot> action-341 -- Nigel Megitt to Check with the mpeg
folk if a wg note would be acceptable. -- due 2014-10-30 --
PENDINGREVIEW
<trackbot>
[16]http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/tracker/actions/341
[16] http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/tracker/actions/341
close action-341
<trackbot> Closed action-341.
action-342?
<trackbot> action-342 -- Nigel Megitt to Add change proposals
to the tpac agenda for tuesday -- due 2014-10-30 --
PENDINGREVIEW
<trackbot>
[17]http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/tracker/actions/342
[17] http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/tracker/actions/342
close action-342
<trackbot> Closed action-342.
Issues raised
issue-351?
<trackbot> issue-351 -- Update IANA registration for TTML2 --
raised
<trackbot>
[18]http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/tracker/issues/351
[18] http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/tracker/issues/351
reopen issue-351
<trackbot> Re-opened issue-351.
issue-352?
<trackbot> issue-352 -- Add Media Registration Annex -- raised
<trackbot>
[19]http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/tracker/issues/352
[19] http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/tracker/issues/352
reopen issue-352
<trackbot> Re-opened issue-352.
issue-353?
<trackbot> issue-353 -- Normatively define short code
processorProfiles parameter -- raised
<trackbot>
[20]http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/tracker/issues/353
[20] http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/tracker/issues/353
reopen issue-353
<trackbot> Re-opened issue-353.
Future meetings
nigel: I will make the November meetings all 1 hour unless
anyone tells me they think we need longer (where 'anyone'
includes me!)
... thank you everyone, let's meet in a week.
... [adjourns meeting]
Summary of Action Items
[NEW] ACTION: nigel submit IMSC 1 to ITU-R Working Party 6B by
10th November [recorded in
[21]http://www.w3.org/2014/11/06-tt-minutes.html#action02]
[NEW] ACTION: pal Thank DVB for input re LC-2983 [recorded in
[22]http://www.w3.org/2014/11/06-tt-minutes.html#action01]
[End of minutes]
__________________________________________________________
Minutes formatted by David Booth's [23]scribe.perl version
1.138 ([24]CVS log)
$Date: 2014-11-06 16:13:01 $
[23] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
[24] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/
Received on Thursday, 6 November 2014 16:18:00 UTC