{minutes} TTWG Meeting 2015-12-17

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] 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


          nigel, andreas, pierre, tmichel, plh, dronca




     * [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

   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

Action Items

   nigel: There's only one to cover that I'm aware of


   <trackbot> action-451 -- Thierry Michel to Investigate if we
   are required to move to the 2015 process -- due 2015-12-03 --


     [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
   ... 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.


   <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



     [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

   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
   ... 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

   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

   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
   ... 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

   <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

   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

   plh: You can return to WD - I don't think it would worsen the

   pal: I think we should record that for issue 111 the group
   chooses to proceed with the current text with Glenn as the sole

   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

   nigel: Of those choices I would prefer 3pm tomorrow, being 8pm

   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/


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