W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-tt@w3.org > February 2015

{minutes} TTWG Meeting 2015-02-26

From: Nigel Megitt <nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2015 16:17:54 +0000
To: Timed Text Working Group <public-tt@w3.org>
Message-ID: <D114F718.1BF96%nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk>
Thanks all for attending today's meeting. Minutes in HTML format are at: http://www.w3.org/2015/02/26-tt-minutes.html

Please note especially that we agreed a 2 week period from today for reviewing the IMSC 1 test suite, available at the implementation report page on the wiki: https://www.w3.org/wiki/TimedText/IMSC1_Implementation_Report

Minutes in text format:


      [1] http://www.w3.org/

                Timed Text Working Group Teleconference

26 Feb 2015

   See also: [2]IRC log

      [2] http://www.w3.org/2015/02/26-tt-irc


          nigel, Andreas, pal, Frans, plh, jdsmith





     * [3]Topics
         1. [4]WD publication process
         2. [5]Action Items
         3. [6]IMSC Test Suite and Implementation Report
         4. [7]F2F
         5. [8]Issues
         6. [9]Change Proposals
     * [10]Summary of Action Items

   <trackbot> Date: 26 February 2015

   <scribe> scribe: nigel

WD publication process

   nigel: I propose to postpone this because one of our Editors,
   Glenn has sent his regrets for today.

   plh: The new process is for early adopters - there's no
   pressure to adopt it right now.
   ... If the editors of the WebVTT spec want to use it and the
   group is okay with it there's no reason why not.

   nigel: I have a preference for adopting the same processes
   across the whole group when possible.
   ... Note that the WebVTT editors are not present now.

   plh: Challenging nigel's approach, the new system does lower
   the workload for Thierry, so it's
   ... good to adopt even if just for WebVTT for now.

   nigel: Just to introduce this a bit better, it's a system that
   allows automatic publishing of WDs only
   ... on any day of the week, as long as the documents meet the
   automatically checked technical
   ... requirements.

   pal: A priori I don't have a problem with this - as long as it
   has benefits.

   nigel: There's also the idea that a single resolution from the
   group could pass publication
   ... control to the editors to publish WDs whenever they like.
   That's a separate matter that I'm
   ... currently less comfortable with.

   plh: CSS, WebApps, Web Performance groups have made blanket
   decisions. Other groups want
   ... to record the decision on every single publication.

   nigel: I don't propose a blanket decision just yet, with those
   present now. I think Glenn
   ... may have some technical questions about the new system,
   which we can cover later.

Action Items


   <trackbot> action-368 -- Pierre-Anthony Lemieux to Update
   publication timeline diagram -- due 2015-02-27 -- PENDINGREVIEW


     [11] http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/tracker/actions/368


     [12] https://www.w3.org/wiki/TimedText/Publications

   close action-368

   <trackbot> Closed action-368.


   <trackbot> action-369 -- Nigel Megitt to Collate smpte issues
   and draft dispositions and circulate on reflector as a
   precursor to a liaison -- due 2015-02-05 -- PENDINGREVIEW


     [13] http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/tracker/actions/369

   nigel: I did a second pass at this and sent it yesterday to the
   reflector. It includes the clarifications
   ... from when we discussed the queries 2 weeks ago.
   ... Pierre, are you happy that this forms the basis to clarify
   the position with SMPTE?

   pal: Yes. I think we should also consider the SMPTE-TT
   background color initial value change.
   ... It would be good to ask the question because there might be
   some specific history on that.
   ... Before making a change to IMSC 1 it would be good to learn
   that history.

   <scribe> ACTION: pal Draft SMPTE request including dispositions
   from Action-369 and backgroundColor initial value question
   [recorded in

   <trackbot> Created ACTION-378 - Draft smpte request including
   dispositions from action-369 and backgroundcolor initial value
   question [on Pierre-Anthony Lemieux - due 2015-03-05].

   pal: I think the latter question is more urgent since IMSC 1 is
   in CR whereas TTML2 is at an earlier stage.


   <trackbot> action-376 -- Nigel Megitt to Update cp21 to check
   current status of all issues -- due 2015-02-26 -- PENDINGREVIEW


     [15] http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/tracker/actions/376

   nigel: I've updated the status of CP21 to Open since Issue-231
   is open.
   ... I'll also update the index page to reflect that.

   <scribe> ... done.

   nigel: I think we're waiting for some more edits to TTML2 on
   character rotation for issue-231.


   <trackbot> action-377 -- Andreas Tai to Capture the ebu-tt-d
   style attributes issue on imsc 1 and raise an issue -- due
   2015-02-26 -- PENDINGREVIEW


     [16] http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/tracker/actions/377

   atai2: I added an issue for IMSC 1 to add some more information
   for the extension features
   ... multiRowAlign and linePadding and state that in EBU-TT-D
   they can only be specified as
   ... children of <style> it is different in IMSC 1 where they
   can appear on <region>, <body>,
   ... <div> and <p>
   ... The issue is issue-375.


   <trackbot> issue-375 -- Use of the ebutts:linePadding and
   ebutts:multiRowAlign in IMSC 1 -- pending review


     [17] http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/tracker/issues/375

   pal: The proposed solution for this is in place in the editor's



     [18] https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/ttml/raw-file/tip/ttml-ww-profiles/ttml-ww-profiles.html

   atai2: I'm just looking at this...

   pal: The change is in §7.4 Text Profile features, just above

   atai2: It's a minor issue if you specify where it may be
   specified rather than where it shall not.

   pal: The problem is that if you do that then it's not clear
   that it can not be specified elsewhere.
   ... I think this is unambiguous.

   atai2: I have to have a look at this - I need to think about
   multiRowAlign. I think it applies only
   ... to <p>.

   pal: I had the same question and I couldn't find unambiguous
   guidance in EBU-TT-D so I followed
   ... the issue to the letter and put them both in the same

   atai2: I will check this with the editor of the EBU-TT-D annex
   and internally. It works alongside
   ... tts:textAlign which can only be applied to <p>. It's
   missing in the EBU-TT-D spec whether or
   ... not multiRowAlign is inheritable.
   ... I'll edit the issue accordingly.

   reopen issue-375

   <trackbot> Re-opened issue-375.


   <trackbot> action-365 -- Pierre-Anthony Lemieux to Review
   change proposal 21 in the light of closure of issue-229. -- due
   2015-01-22 -- OPEN


     [19] http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/tracker/actions/365

   nigel: This is now dependent on action-378 so I'll bump the due
   date back.


   <trackbot> action-375 -- Pierre-Anthony Lemieux to Complete
   processing of dece test criteria as per action-373 -- due
   2015-02-26 -- OPEN


     [20] http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/tracker/actions/375

   pal: I've spent some quality time with the DECE test suite...

IMSC Test Suite and Implementation Report



     [21] https://www.w3.org/wiki/TimedText/IMSC1_Implementation_Report

   pal: Last week I had completed transfer of one of the tests
   from the DECE test suite.
   ... I continued with that and added a second one. I started
   doing the remainder and realised that
   ... all the rest are focused on things that are already tested
   in other tests or focused on DECE
   ... specific issues like track selection and sync with video. I
   did not see an immediate need
   ... to include those. My inclination is to close this action
   because we're good.

   nigel: Have you deleted the ones that aren't relevant?

   pal: I've not deleted them but I've shortened the table to
   include only those that are necessary.
   ... Previously it included indiscriminately all the DECE tests.
   There was a lot of overlap and for
   ... the purposes of the test suite we don't need all of them to
   cover all the IMSC 1 features.

   nigel: Do we have a list of exactly which features we want to

   pal: As per the email thread, we want to test every single
   feature that IMSC 1 introduces that is
   ... not in TTML1.
   ... The extensions section of IMSC 1 is a good place to start.

   nigel: That doesn't include all the normative features in the
   spec though does it?

   pal: Those are all constraints relative to TTML1 that are
   present there.

   nigel: What about e.g. HRM?

   pal: The suggestion from thierry is to create a max complexity
   document, which is done and is in the test suite.

   nigel: I think for tracking purposes we need a document that
   lists all the features we want to test, with the tests that
   verify each one.

   pal: The table in the implementation report is my version of
   that list. The bold all column rows
   ... describe each feature, and the rows beneath each one are
   the tests that verify them.

   nigel: I'd like everyone whose interested to check that a)
   they're happy with the features being
   ... tested and b) that the tests do check them. I'd like to set
   a date for completion of that review.

   jdsmith: I think the process is clear here. For me the main
   question is: do the test cases fully
   ... test the extension? I can see how this table was built for
   the Implementation Report. It looks
   ... like it covers all of the extension paragraphs in appendix

   nigel: My general concern is that not all the normative
   statements in the spec are captured as
   ... extension features in F so we need to review against the
   whole document.
   ... I propose that we allow 2 weeks from today for everyone to
   review the implementation report
   ... and either raise any queries/issues or make changes or say
   they're happy with it (where silence
   ... is taken as happiness!)

   group: happy with proposal to allow 2 weeks from today to close
   off the tests.

   pal: What's captured today in the implementation report is
   everything I think we need from the DECE test criteria.

   close action-375

   <trackbot> Closed action-375.



     [22] https://www.w3.org/wiki/TimedText/F2F-april-2015

   nigel: Please could all who are attending confirm by adding
   your names to the list there?
   ... Also please let me know if you want agenda items - I don't
   want to add whole new topics
   ... on the day if possible.

   atai2: I'm not sure yet if I can come. It would be good if we
   can continue with what we began
   ... in Geneva on TTML/WebVTT mapping.

   pal: To make this productive, and thinking about our past
   experience, someone would need to
   ... bring a strawman starting point.

   atai2: +1
   ... I think that there's interest in this topic in the industry
   and we should continue to work
   ... on it. Either with a strawman to discuss or just how to
   proceed on it in general. I agree that
   ... we have to make more steps forward before discussing in
   detail at the F2F. We should not
   ... in general let it fall under the table.



   <trackbot> issue-373 -- tts:lineHeight should apply to span --


     [23] http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/tracker/issues/373

   nigel: Glenn has raised this to allow for height control of
   ruby areas by using lineHeight on span.

   pal: TTML was designed to capture as many authorial intents as
   possible, but it's now beginning
   ... to look like generalised text markup.

   nigel: My view is that TTML2 should include every semantic that
   is needed for global presentation
   ... of timed text. There's another view that all text
   presentation semantics should be factored out
   ... e.g. to CSS, but I don't know how we'd do that.

   pal: My query is more philosophical - we're using span for a
   lot of the ruby presentations at the moment.

   reopen issue-373

   <trackbot> Re-opened issue-373.


   <trackbot> issue-374 -- Generalize tts:fontVariantPosition --


     [24] http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/tracker/issues/374

   nigel: This is to allow half and full width forms and ruby as
   well as super and sub, combinatorially.

   reopen issue-374

   <trackbot> Re-opened issue-374.


   <trackbot> issue-364 -- Relax constraint between the extents of
   the root container and the dimensions of the related video
   object frame -- pending review


     [25] http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/tracker/issues/364

   nigel: I'm not sure where we're up to on this one but it's been
   pending review for over a month.
   ... Given the time let's come back to it next week.

Change Proposals

   nigel: I've added a 'before CR exit' priority and moved Tests
   to it since we don't need tests for the
   ... WD for wide review, but only need them for CR exit.
   ... Thanks all for attending - I'll adjourn now, meet again
   same time next week. [adjourns meeting]

Summary of Action Items

   [NEW] ACTION: pal Draft SMPTE request including dispositions
   from Action-369 and backgroundColor initial value question
   [recorded in

   [End of minutes]

    Minutes formatted by David Booth's [27]scribe.perl version
    1.140 ([28]CVS log)
    $Date: 2015-02-26 16:14:42 $

     [27] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm

     [28] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/

Received on Thursday, 26 February 2015 16:18:32 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:43:45 UTC