- From: Nigel Megitt <nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk>
- Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2015 16:33:56 +0000
- To: TTWG <public-tt@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <D29891AE.2EB2C%nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk>
Thanks all for attending this the last TTWG meeting of 2015, and to everyone for your contributions over the year. Minutes of today's meeting can be found in HTML format at http://www.w3.org/2015/12/17-tt-minutes.html
We agreed to request transition of IMSC to CR3 while leaving issue 111 (amongst others) open.
In text format:
[1]W3C
[1] http://www.w3.org/
Timed Text Working Group Teleconference
17 Dec 2015
See also: [2]IRC log
[2] http://www.w3.org/2015/12/17-tt-irc
Attendees
Present
nigel, andreas, pierre, tmichel, plh, dronca
Regrets
Chair
nigel
Scribe
nigel
Contents
* [3]Topics
1. [4]This Meeting
2. [5]Action Items
3. [6]TTML and WebVTT Mapping Document
4. [7]IMSC Substantive Changes
5. [8]IMSC Pull Requests
* [9]Summary of Action Items
* [10]Summary of Resolutions
__________________________________________________________
<scribe> scribe: nigel
This Meeting
nigel: I think for today we have IMSC substantive changes to
review.
pal: Yes, I've updated the summary of substantive changes on
the repo.
atai2: I want to give some info on the mapping document too.
nigel: Ok!
pal: Let's start with that then.
nigel: I think we can close off the 2015 process issue too.
... We also have the IMSC implementation report, and proposed
new tests
... AOB?
pal: I'd like to go over a bunch of pull requests and see if we
can accept them - they're minor but they've only been out for a
week.
Action Items
nigel: There's only one to cover that I'm aware of
action-451?
<trackbot> action-451 -- Thierry Michel to Investigate if we
are required to move to the 2015 process -- due 2015-12-03 --
PENDINGREVIEW
<trackbot>
[11]http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/tracker/actions/451
[11] http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/tracker/actions/451
nigel: I sent the call for consensus out on Friday 4th December
so the 2 week period for review ends tomorrow. So far there
have been no objections or negative comments of any kind.
TTML and WebVTT Mapping Document
atai2: I think there are minor edits and pull requests to
correct some errors.
... We don't need to discuss them now.
... I had a call last week with Loretta to discuss how to
proceed. I also talked to Simon about it in Sapporo. There was
at least one
... problem at that time - we did the mapping according to the
specs, but of course in real operation there is no complete
implementation
... and there are interoperability issues where different
browsers implement different features, so those features aren't
safe to use.
... The other thing is that there are substantive changes that
Simon has made to the WebVTT spec.
... On the first point we did not come to a conclusion. One
approach is to check what is really supported and indicate in
the spec
... what mapping is desirable vs what might be practically
needed to make it work. Loretta made the point that we should
base the mapping
... on the specs not the implementations. Overall what we
agreed is to try to fix errors, and make some examples, and
start from there.
... That's the most obvious and fruitful work for the mapping
document, then we have to see how WebVTT goes towards Rec to
know what
... features we can really count on.
ack
<Zakim> plehegar__, you wanted to discuss a side comment
plehegar__: I've missed out on what Loretta's github user is,
so I can add her to the repo.
atai2: It should be there.
nigel: That seems like a good way forward, and good to know
you're working on it with Loretta.
<inserted> plh and atai liaise re getting Loretta added to the
github repo for the mapping document
IMSC Substantive Changes
<pal>
[12]https://github.com/w3c/imsc/blob/master/spec/substantive-ch
anges-summary.txt
[12] https://github.com/w3c/imsc/blob/master/spec/substantive-changes-summary.txt
pal: Nigel and I have gone through the changes and categorised
them. There are some substantive changes.
nigel: So those are the substantive changes, and also there are
a bunch that are not substantive.
pal: That's correct.
nigel: Do we have a Director's call booked to go through the
substantive changes, as needed to transition from CR to CR?
plh: We will care about what wide review there was on those
changes. The Director needs to be reassured that either the
changes do not
... affect the wide review or have been reviewed. If it's
straightforward then I can sit down with Ralph and go through
them.
nigel: We have not sought wide review on any of the changes -
they have all come from group member comments. However I would
... say that although they are substantive they are all
clarifications that make the spec say what it meant before, or
looked like it meant.
pal: I'd agree with that.
plh: Tell me more about issue-79
pal: There are two ways to indicate profile in TTML and it was
unclear before. Following discussions we decided to omit the
ttp:profile element.
... There is no formal profile document for IMSC 1 and there
were identified limitations to the profile element. To make it
clear we have now
... prohibited the element and encouraged use of the attribute.
plh: Can I say that SMPTE and EBU are happy with the change?
atai2: For example, EBU-TT-D, which is a subset of IMSC, also
prohibits the ttp:element and the ttp:attribute. If they were
required in the
... document then it would be impossible to make EBU-TT-D a
subset of IMSC, so EBU is fine with this.
plh: In that case my recommendation is we don't do a Director's
call, and I arrange it with the Director. I don't think we can
publish
... before the moratorium. Unless you want to be around I can
get the approval to publish.
nigel: Sounds good to me!
plh: I'm going to request approval tomorrow afternoon, so you
can prepare the document for publication.
pal: Excellent. Nigel mentioned that there's 1 issue here,
which is on the 2015 process adoption. Nigel issued a call for
consensus for that
... which ends tomorrow, so by tomorrow afternoon you'll have a
clean document.
plh: In general we allow 7 days between the publication request
and the publication. Tomorrow we will get the okay to publish.
pal: Okay, then the other thing is to go through the open pull
requests and since we have a quorum make a decision on them.
nigel: Just to confirm, we're not changing the CR exit
criteria, and the earliest date will be the minimum after
publication.
plh: That's 4 weeks.
... You'll also trigger a 60 day call for exclusion due to the
substantive changes.
nigel: That doesn't need a document change does it?
plh: Correct, it just happens.
IMSC Pull Requests
pal: PR #106 changes the old process reference to the new one.
<pal> [13]https://github.com/w3c/imsc/pull/106
[13] https://github.com/w3c/imsc/pull/106
nigel: A tool for IRC to generate github links would be nice!
plh: We can ask Santa Clause! Actually the gitter tool
integrates chat with git nicely.
nigel: Everyone's happy with that, what's next?
pal: PR #119
<pal> [14]https://github.com/w3c/imsc/pull/119
[14] https://github.com/w3c/imsc/pull/119
pal: This is for issue 110.
... This reminds the user that only cell units can be used for
line padding.
nigel: That's editorial.
pal: Yes, and factual.
atai2: It's a good important note.
<pal> [15]https://github.com/w3c/imsc/pull/120.
[15] https://github.com/w3c/imsc/pull/120.
pal: I'll merge those later. Next is #120
... This one clarifies which of #backgroundColor-inline and
-block and -region are permitted in the image profile, since
they're used as fallback in SMPTE-TT.
... That change falls in the general category of clarifying
feature tables and making everything explicit.
... They were not forbidden before but now it is explicit that
they are permitted. (block and region)
... -inline is prohibited because there's no inline content. It
was before, but now it's absolutely explicit.
... The next one is on the same lines. #121
<pal> [16]https://github.com/w3c/imsc/pull/121
[16] https://github.com/w3c/imsc/pull/121
pal: span was prohibited in image profile, so nested-span,
which was implicitly prohibited is now noted as being
prohibited. That's purely editorial.
<pal> [17]https://github.com/w3c/imsc/pull/122
[17] https://github.com/w3c/imsc/pull/122
pal: Next is #122
... This resolves a number of related issues, all to do with
TTML1 features being derived from other features - if one is
prohibited then the
... parent feature has no single disposition. This pull request
clarifies that.
... It does so by pointing the reader to the relevant children
features that the reader ought to look at.
... For example #visibility -> (#visibility-region,
#visibility-block etc). Some are prohibited, others forbidden.
... This is essentially just an editorial change.
... Next one is more substantive: #123
<pal> [18]https://github.com/w3c/imsc/pull/123
[18] https://github.com/w3c/imsc/pull/123
pal: I've followed up with CFF-TT folks on this. The current
text limits the number of presented images per region to 1,
which has been clear
... for a long time. However what it did not say is that the
number of div elements per presented region ought also to be 1.
It would be possible
... to create a document with 2 divs in a presented region,
only one being a presented image. One of the div elements would
be empty,
... and could have a background colour, but that wasn't
intended. Glenn pointed out that you could have 2 divs both
with an image, but one
... not presented because it falls outside the region. The
proposal here is to clarify the text that there can only be one
div element per
... presented region in image profile.
... This clarifies the intent. I don't know why anyone would
have created more than 1 div per region, but now they clearly
cannot.
nigel: And it's had review?
pal: It was not clear in CFF-TT and when I followed up with
folks there everyone agreed with this intent and nobody could
think of a reason
... to do anything differently.
nigel: Any more?
pal: Those are all of them.
nigel: Okay, so everyone seems to be happy with all of those.
pal: I'll merge those all and create a CR3 version and send an
email to the reflector with the proposed CR3 document.
nigel: Fantastic, thank you.
pal: Thank you all - I think the document is a lot clearer.
nigel: Just looking at the outstanding issues, there are some
unresolved ones, one of which is associated with a formal
objection
... that, since we have been unable to reach a consensus, I
propose we take forward to the Director. This is an objection
to transition to a new CR.
plh: This is a different thing now - we will need a Director's
call after all. Is the spec ready for CR3?
pal: This is issue 111.
[19]https://github.com/w3c/imsc/issues/111
[19] https://github.com/w3c/imsc/issues/111
<tmichel> objection is:
<tmichel> Unless and until a fallback profile is mandated
normatively in IMSC1, SKYNAV formally objects to any new CR
being published.
pal: There is not even consensus that the issue is a real
issue. That's fundamental.
... There's also consensus that Glenn's proposed solution does
not work. And thirdly despite much effort online and offline
there has been
... no consensus to a solution to the problem. Fourthly, there
are no other strong objections to the current text.
plh: Translating, the group has not yet made a clear decision
but believes that this should not prevent update of the
specification with the
... issue remaining open within the working group. Is that an
appropriate summary?
nigel: Yes, I think that is an appropriate summary.
plh: At some point the group will have to take a position,
whether to accept or reject Glenn's position. I need a decision
from the group.
... Either you close the issue or keep it open and decide not
make it a blocker to CR.
nigel: I think it was my proposal at the beginning to do the
latter.
plh: It needs to be a decision not a proposal.
nigel: Okay, I'm formally proposing to move to CR3 without
closing issue 111. Any objections to that?
tmichel: The only thing I can see here is that we may need a
further CR.
nigel: We're caught here because the process has changed under
our feet - we would be auto publishing a WD if we were still in
WD.
plh: You can return to WD - I don't think it would worsen the
outlook.
pal: I think we should record that for issue 111 the group
chooses to proceed with the current text with Glenn as the sole
objector.
nigel: So right now we have no objections to my proposal, so
I'm going to record it as a decision.
tmichel: I think this is better than going back to WD which
would send a wrong signal.
pal: I think the group has been responsive to every comment and
has processed all comments and proposed resolutions sometimes
with substantive changes.
... In this case the consensus is there may not be a problem
and the solution proposed is not acceptable.
plh: In order to update CR the process does not require you to
address all issues. That would apply to PR though.
pal: And the resolution can be to dispose of the issue.
plh: That's correct.
nigel: For the minutes, we have decided to proceed with the
request to transition to CR3 with issue 111 remaining open,
despite the formal objection.
... This will be resolved before we move to PR.
plh: Then we may need a Director's call.
... We will need to know more about #111 precisely. I can try
to represent it. I recommend that we have a Director's call.
nigel: Can we schedule that?
plh: Today, afternoon between 1pm and 4:30pm is open, or
tomorrow 3-4pm Eastern. Otherwise next week, could be Monday
afternoon.
nigel: Of those choices I would prefer 3pm tomorrow, being 8pm
UTC.
tmichel: I'll try to be there but not 100%. I don't want to be
on the critical path.
pal: Tomorrow at noon (pacific) is fine for me.
plh: Alright, so I'll send a confirmation email with call
information, after the transition request.
tmichel: Is there other stuff we need to prepare? We have the
list of substantive changes...
plh: Actually, looking at the list of substantive changes,
which should I use, the latest set?
pal: In the next couple of hours I will prepare a CR3 and point
to the specific list of changes that need to be presented.
plh: I'm only interested in the changes since CR2.
pal: That's the latest list, but one pull request from this
morning will need to be added.
plh: Fine by me, I'll add that to the issues list and note
issue 111.
... We have to talk about it since there is a formal objection.
... I expect this to take 30 minutes at most tomorrow. I assume
it will be Ralph Swick who is Director, otherwise I will need
to sync with timbl's calendar. Hopefully we can keep it simple.
... Okay, thank you.
nigel: Thanks everyone, whatever you do over the holiday
period, enjoy it! [adjourns meeting]
Summary of Action Items
Summary of Resolutions
[End of minutes]
__________________________________________________________
Minutes formatted by David Booth's [20]scribe.perl version
1.144 ([21]CVS log)
$Date: 2015/12/17 16:31:14 $
[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, 17 December 2015 16:35:39 UTC