Re: {minutes} TTWG Meeting 2015-12-10

> nigel: Have you managed to check with Mike Dolan and David Ronca on why
SMPTE and Netflix are also listed?

I think that these are two separate emmys. Netflix was awarded a technical
emmy for the work that we are doing to globalize subtitle standards.
Specifically the work to achieve adoption of ttml2 and IMSC(1/2) through
the funding and development of open-source implementations that cover these
specs (ttv/ttpe/ttx) and the work.

David

On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 8:20 AM, Nigel Megitt <nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk>
wrote:

> Thank you all who attended today's rather unusual meeting. Minutes can be
> found in HTML format at: http://www.w3.org/2015/12/10-tt-minutes.html
>
> In text format:
>
>    [1]W3C
>
>       [1] http://www.w3.org/
>
>                 Timed Text Working Group Teleconference
>
> 10 Dec 2015
>
>    See also: [2]IRC log
>
>       [2] http://www.w3.org/2015/12/10-tt-irc
>
> Attendees
>
>    Present
>           pal, tmichel, nigel, andreas, plh
>
>    Regrets
>           dakim, frans
>
>    Chair
>           nigel
>
>    Scribe
>           nigel
>
> Contents
>
>      * [3]Topics
>          1. [4]This meeting
>          2. [5]IMSC
>          3. [6]TTML
>          4. [7]2015 Process
>          5. [8]TTML-WebVTT mapping
>      * [9]Summary of Action Items
>      * [10]Summary of Resolutions
>      __________________________________________________________
>
>    <scribe> scribe: nigel
>
> This meeting
>
>    pal: I need to leave early so can we cover off any IMSC stuff
>    early?
>
>    nigel: Yes. AOB anyone?
>
>    group: no AOB
>
> IMSC
>
>    nigel: We've had quite a lot of activity. Pierre are we able to
>    review the IMSC changes to see which are substantive?
>
>    pal: I was planning to do that next week, but we could do some
>    of them now.
>
>    nigel: Anything else to cover?
>
>    pal: The only thing is this issue of the definition of
>    "prohibited". I'm not sure how much progress we can make on
>    this without Glenn.
>    ... Otherwise I've made progress resolving the issues online.
>    Thanks for reviewing.
>
>    nigel: Thanks for making the fixes!
>
>    pal: The other issue is if we need an algorithm for discovering
>    the IMSC profile.
>    ... [11]https://github.com/w3c/imsc/issues/111
>    ... I was wondering if there are further thoughts on that, and
>    the definition of prohibited are the two outstanding issues.
>    ... Maybe we need to continue that offline since Glenn is not
>    on the call.
>    ... [12]https://github.com/w3c/imsc/issues/114
>
>      [11] https://github.com/w3c/imsc/issues/111
>      [12] https://github.com/w3c/imsc/issues/114
>
>    atai2: I'm just wondering if we covered this in Sapporo. I
>    thought we captured the case if no profile is available.
>    ... I wasn't aware that there's a problem.
>
>    pal: That's an important point - it was the topic of a lengthy
>    discussion with Glenn in the room and I think we arrived at
>    language with
>    ... consensus. I'm not ready to change that language unless
>    there's consensus for a change.
>
>    nigel: I do think there may be an issue around the words
>    "successful processing" which we could define as excluding
>    ignoring any semantics.
>
>    pal: My inclination is not to change it given the time we've
>    spent on it already.
>
>    atai2: I agree with Pierre. We spent a lot of time on it and
>    went through a lot of different options. There should be a
>    concrete alternative proposal
>    ... if someone wants to change the spec.
>
>    nigel: Sorry I think I was talking about the conformance issue
>    rather than the profile issue.
>
>    atai2: Also there may be some external information available to
>    determine the profile so that's out of scope of the
>    specification to say which profile it is in this case.
>
>    nigel: Glenn has stated that he will raise a formal objection
>    without such an algorithm in place to deduce the profile.
>
>    pal: My latest proposal to Glenn is neutral in that it proposes
>    that if a document cannot be identified as one of the two
>    profiles then it should
>    ... be treated as a generic TTML document.
>
>    nigel: I think that seems fair.
>
>    <atai2> +1
>
>    nigel: We need Glenn's answer to your question on the issue.
>
>    pal: Seems reasonable to me to treat it as a generic TTML
>    document if it can not be determined to be IMSC.
>
>    atai2: Same here.
>
>    <plh> plh: sounds good
>
>    nigel: Is it unreasonable to state an algorithm for deducing
>    which kind of IMSC document one is given a starting point of
>    'it's some kind of IMSC'?
>    ... Glenn did propose: "If no ttp:profile attribute is present,
>    then the text profile applies."
>
>    pal: I don't think anyone would use that. I think that there's
>    no practical generic algorithm because different circumstances
>    apply.
>
>    atai2: I had the same thought as Pierre at first. If you really
>    want to find out which profile it is I would search for image
>    profile specific content elements (as Pierre just mentioned)
>    ... as they are only allowed in the image profile and not in
>    the text profile.
>
>    nigel: Likewise you could search for a span
>
>    pal: Exactly.
>
>    nigel: The desire is to look at something at the top of the
>    document rather than an in depth search.
>
>    pal: That's right, which is the purpose of ttp:profile and
>    ebuttm:conformsToStandard.
>    ... There's a document called substantive changes summary,
>    under spec, which is a list of substantive changes. My plan is
>    to prepare a list
>    ... of substantive changes to it, which we can do next week or
>    beforehand offline.
>
>    nigel: It could be a good idea to put the changes into a wiki
>    page for offline discussion.
>
>    pal: Or we could just add issues to indicate which they think
>    are substantive.
>    ... I've looked at all the commits and collected them together.
>
>    nigel: I guess we could label each issue.
>
>    pal: That would be smart. I think on past reviews the text
>    document is still expected, so that will be the canonical
>    source.
>    ... I plan to have that document ready for next week.
>    ... I'll set up some time with you Nigel to review the list
>    early next week.
>
>    nigel: Okay, great.
>
>    pal: [has to leave.] Bye
>
> TTML
>
>    plh: It turns out that TTML has won an award. The email has
>    been sitting in my spam for ages but we never got the hard copy
>    of the email.
>    ... We're trying to figure out if we can get the original
>    authors of TTML 1.0 to the ceremony.
>    ... [describes the history of how TTWG was set up]
>    ... The WG was setup in 2003.
>    ... It took me a long time to reconstruct this history!
>    ... We're inviting people but we
>    ... won't be able to cover the cost of the event itself.
>    ... Expect to get more news from us ASAP on that front.
>
>    nigel: Wow! Well that's great news.
>
>    tmichel: I don't know exactly what this award is - is it for
>    W3C for designing the language? Is it the first language in W3C
>    to be rewarded?
>
>    <plh> [13]http://emmyonline.com/tech_67th_recipients
>
>      [13] http://emmyonline.com/tech_67th_recipients
>
>    plh: It came out of the blue! We were not expecting it.
>    ... I can't tell you if we ever got an award for HTML. We do
>    believe it's the first Emmy award we've received. We don't
>    expect to get television awards.
>
>    nigel: Have you managed to check with Mike Dolan and David
>    Ronca on why SMPTE and Netflix are also listed?
>
>    plh: I haven't yet. I was hoping they'd be here today.
>
>    tmichel: So the award is shared between all 5 organisations?
>
>    plh: Yes. I think each will get a statue but I'm not 100% sure.
>    ... If you're interested in finding more about it you could
>    look at last year's ceremony in which JPEG2000 got an award.
>    ... David Kirby will be in our thoughts. He commented on
>    Thierry's draft charter, and was involved from the very early
>    days. Goeff Freed took the lead in very very early days out of
>    WAI PF.
>    ... We need Glenn too of course. [...]
>
>    nigel: Of course the first Rec was in 2010, so there was a lot
>    of work over a long time.
>
>    plh: In early 2008 I came in and decided not to use SMIL text
>    but TTML, and drafted a new charter to restart the WG.
>    ... Then we had some discussions over scope that delayed the
>    Rec (dynamic flow!).
>    ... The spec is dedicated to David Kirby, which was proposed by
>    Sean Hayes. It was the way it turned out that on November 15th
>    I sent the
>    ... email to the Directors asking for Rec status and on
>    November 16th we received the news from BBC that David has
>    passed. Then Sean
>    ... asked for the dedication and on Nov 18th we published with
>    the REC with the dedication present. It happened within 3 days.
>    ... The whole issue with HTML surfaced in 2009 and that
>    triggered the discussion about SRT and TTML that led to WebVTT.
>
>    nigel: This is a really interesting story - I'd like to see a
>    written down version.
>    ... Sorry to be a boring chair but are there any actions around
>    this right now?
>
>    plh: Not right now, but expect to receive an email from us.
>
>    [14]http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/REC-ttaf1-dfxp-20101118/
>
>      [14] http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/REC-ttaf1-dfxp-20101118/
>
>    plh: We have to send that back tomorrow so we're turning it
>    around pretty fast.
>
>    tmichel: The question that comes to my mind is: what is this
>    going to bring to W3C or TTML? First, is W3C going to be
>    granted some
>    ... money for more research?
>
>    plh: No.
>
>    tmichel: And secondly, does this push the language to be
>    implemented more? Would that help? Like getting an award at
>    Cannes helps to promote the movie?
>
>    plh: I don't know to be honest. This has come from the
>    television industry. Mike Dolan would know more than I do on
>    this front about what
>    ... it means for the impact on the television industry. I don't
>    think it will necessarily make a difference to browser makers.
>    ... If it helps TTML in the adoption of the TV industry - I
>    know it's been adopted by SMPTE, EBU, DECE, DVB, HbbTV 2.0.
>
>    <atai2> +q
>
>    nigel: There's a whole list of adopters out there.
>
>    plh: The one thing you'd be able to say at least is "Emmy award
>    winner: TTML"! :)
>
>    atai2: That's great to hear, so congratulations. Really
>    impressive. I have some comments on the TTML WebVTT mapping
>    document if there's still time.
>
> 2015 Process
>
>    nigel: I just want to check that there are no queries or
>    comments on the proposal to adopt the 2015 process?
>
>    tmichel: I just wanted to add a small issue about publishing a
>    new CR version as we know that we are going to publish a CR of
>    IMSC but we
>    ... also know that we have more comments coming in and we will
>    need another publication of a CR after that. Somebody asked me
>    if we should
>    ... wait or publish now. I think plh's view is we should wait
>    and collect everything for a CR, implement as much as possible
>    and target just
>    ... one snapshot instead of more iterations.
>
>    plh: My common view is publish as often as you can, but you
>    have to balance that with the effort needed and the detail
>    level.
>
> TTML-WebVTT mapping
>
>    atai2: I think given the time we should postpone that until
>    next week, especially as Simon has left the IRC.
>
>    nigel: Apologies for cutting off two conversations. But that's
>    okay because we're at the end of our meeting time.
>    ... It's been an unusual meeting - thanks very much. Next week
>    we have the last meeting of the year. We should have a
>    resolution on
>    ... adopting the 2015 process and agreement on which IMSC
>    changes are substantive, so it should be a good one.
>
>    plh: Congratulations to the group [for the award].
>
>    nigel: Thanks very much everyone [adjourns meeting]
>
> Summary of Action Items
>
> Summary of Resolutions
>
>    [End of minutes]
>      __________________________________________________________
>
>
>     Minutes formatted by David Booth's [15]scribe.perl version
>     1.144 ([16]CVS log)
>     $Date: 2015/12/10 16:18:37 $
>
>      [15] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
>      [16] 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.
>
> ---------------------
>