{minutes} TTWG Meeting 2015-01-29

Thank you all for attending today's meeting. Minutes in HTML format can be found at: http://www.w3.org/2015/01/29-tt-minutes.html


We made one resolution today:

RESOLUTION: We will publish the TTML2 ED with modified SOTD as a FPWD
The review period for this resolution under our decision process ends on 12th February, however please note that the intended publication date is Thursday 5th February, so if you have an objection to this decision please raise it before that time.

NB this will be based on the current editor's draft not the snapshot provided at the start of the pre-FPWD review.

Minutes in text format:


   [1]W3C

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


                Timed Text Working Group Teleconference

29 Jan 2015

   See also: [2]IRC log

      [2] http://www.w3.org/2015/01/29-tt-irc


Attendees

   Present
          glenn, nigel, tmichel, pal, jdsmith

   Regrets
          frans_de_jong, Andreas

   Chair
          nigel

   Scribe
          nigel

Contents

     * [3]Topics
         1. [4]This meeting
         2. [5]Action Items
         3. [6]F2F
         4. [7]Issues
         5. [8]IMSC Test Suite
     * [9]Summary of Action Items
     __________________________________________________________

   <trackbot> Date: 29 January 2015

   <scribe> scribeNick: nigel

This meeting

   nigel: Outlines agenda, asks for AOB

   group: no AOBs

Action Items

   action-360?

   <trackbot> action-360 -- Nigel Megitt to Send liaison request
   on behalf of w3c ttwg to arib -- due 2014-12-18 -- OPEN

   <trackbot>
   [10]http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/tracker/actions/360


     [10] http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/tracker/actions/360


   nigel: I need to chase on this one

   action-364?

   <trackbot> action-364 -- Glenn Adams to Add paragraph in intro
   that summarizes changes from ttml1 (comment from tm) -- due
   2015-01-22 -- OPEN

   <trackbot>
   [11]http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/tracker/actions/364


     [11] http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/tracker/actions/364


   glenn: I'll add this to a later WD but prior to the FPWD add a
   pointer to the changes document.
   ... I don't want to add an editorial summary now because it's
   too soon.

   tmichel: I agree it's not an immediate requirement, for an
   FPWD. There's no rush to do it today.

   nigel: I've moved the due date for this to 17th March.
   ... The next one is Action-365 - let's discuss in the context
   of TTML2 issues.

F2F

   nigel: A couple of people were going to discuss hosting options
   - if you could come back next week
   ... that would be great.
   ... In terms of date, is 9-10 April looking good?
   ... Folk will need to make arrangements concrete pretty soon,
   so it would be good to get this
   ... fixed in the diary soon - if we can do it next week that
   would be great.

Issues

   nigel: The basis of the TTML2 review was the snapshot:

   [12]https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/ttml/raw-file/tip/ttml2/spec/ttml2-2

   0150114-pre-fpwd-review-1.html

     [12] https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/ttml/raw-file/tip/ttml2/spec/ttml2-20150114-pre-fpwd-review-1.html

   glenn: I didn't intend that we publish that exactly - the SOTD
   section needs to be modified, and
   ... it needs to go through pubrules.
   ... Plus there are a number of other changes since then.

   nigel: Does anyone want to raise anything specifically on the
   snapshot, before we deal with the
   ... later changes?

   tmichel: For the FPWD please could you comment out the two
   paragraphs following the contributing authors
   ... before the copyright section, referring to errata and
   translation - we add those at Rec level.

   <glenn>
   [13]http://services.w3.org/htmldiff?doc1=https%3A%2F%2Fdvcs.w3.

   org%2Fhg%2Fttml%2Fraw-file%2Ftip%2Fttml2%2Fspec%2Fttml2-2015011
   4-pre-fpwd-review-1.html&doc2=https%3A%2F%2Fdvcs.w3.org%2Fhg%2F
   ttml%2Fraw-file%2Ftip%2Fttml2%2Fspec%2Fttml2.html

     [13] http://services.w3.org/htmldiff?doc1=https%3A%2F%2Fdvcs.w3.org%2Fhg%2Fttml%2Fraw-file%2Ftip%2Fttml2%2Fspec%2Fttml2-20150114-pre-fpwd-review-1.html&doc2=https%3A%2F%2Fdvcs.w3.org%2Fhg%2Fttml%2Fraw-file%2Ftip%2Fttml2%2Fspec%2Fttml2.html


   glenn: The above link gives a diff between the snapshot and the
   editor's draft

   nigel: Pierre raised a number of points - do they need edits
   before we publish as FPWD?

   pal: Not necessarily. I would like to see a plan especially wrt
   the SMPTE requests.

   nigel: So do we need to send a disposition back to SMPTE on our
   changes relative to their
   ... requests, and get their feedback?

   pal: Yes, and also it would be helpful for SMPTE to know if
   their specs have any problems.

   glenn: We don't have any obligation to communicate back with
   SMPTE, though the issue raiser could do so.
   ... Also, more philosophically, IMO when another organisation
   has created an orthogonal specification
   ... like the SMPTE D-cinema folks did we don't have any
   obligation to adopt verbatim 'whatever they did'
   ... on principle alone.

   <glenn> [14]http://www.w3.org/TR/jlreq/#handling_of_tatechuyoko


     [14] http://www.w3.org/TR/jlreq/#handling_of_tatechuyoko


   glenn: It's legitimate for us to have different design
   criteria, or to think another solution is wrong.
   ... The link above shows 3 examples of what I've been
   describing re horizontal placing in
   ... an em square.

   nigel: It makes sense to have continuing communication with
   SMPTE with the aim of worldwide
   ... harmonisation, so it would be appropriate to respond to
   their liaison with our disposition.
   ... That might be 'yes, we've done X', or 'we don't understand
   why you want to do it', or
   ... 'we've done Y - does that meet your needs?' for example.

   glenn: I don't object to sending a liaison.

   <scribe> ACTION: nigel Collate SMPTE issues and draft
   dispositions and circulate on reflector as a precursor to a
   liaison [recorded in
   [15]http://www.w3.org/2015/01/29-tt-minutes.html#action01]

   <trackbot> Created ACTION-369 - Collate smpte issues and draft
   dispositions and circulate on reflector as a precursor to a
   liaison [on Nigel Megitt - due 2015-02-05].

   nigel: Are there any specific snapshot issues to discuss now
   before FPWD?

   <glenn>
   [16]http://www.w3.org/TR/jlreq/#composition_of_emphasis_dots


     [16] http://www.w3.org/TR/jlreq/#composition_of_emphasis_dots


   glenn: I appreciate pal's questions, and I'd like to respond to
   them.
   ... Above is a link that describes emphasis marks.
   ... Re tts:position, the use case is to address a couple of
   issues. One of them was a part of the
   ... collection of proposed changes that Sean proposed some time
   back. One was to support
   ... attachment points, from CEA708. The positioning model of
   WebVTT could be partly viewed
   ... as relating to that.

   pal: My concern is that we only just got people using
   tts:origin correctly, but we don't have to solve this right
   now.
   ... I'm generally concerned about complexity.

   glenn: I think we need this to address the submitted issues.
   ... We can't avoid some increase in complexity. We could omit
   some features of course.
   ... My position is to move forward early and then remove
   features. It provides more flexibility
   ... to see what gets implemented and it makes sure that
   features are handled in the IPR disclosures.
   ... Before I publish the FPWD we can register the new points as
   issues or put Ed Notes into
   ... the document or notes for the editor to deal with comments.

   nigel: It depends on the nature of the issue. It is important
   that substantive changes can be tracked.

   glenn: I don't mind if things are added as issues.

   issue-367?

   <trackbot> issue-367 -- Clarify initial value override for
   tts:textAlign -- raised

   <trackbot>
   [17]http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/tracker/issues/367


     [17] http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/tracker/issues/367


   reopen issue-367

   <trackbot> Re-opened issue-367.

   issue-368?

   <trackbot> issue-368 -- The [Construct Intermediate Document]
   process erroneously prunes empty <br> elements -- raised

   <trackbot>
   [18]http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/tracker/issues/368


     [18] http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/tracker/issues/368


   reopen issue-368

   <trackbot> Re-opened issue-368.

   glenn: On Issue-367, I had missed in my review that there's
   language that overwrites an initial
   ... value. I want to repeat that it makes IMSC1 incompatible
   with TTML, so it needs to be fixed.
   ... IMSC 1 should not be contrary to TTML1.
   ... It violates the process and conformance section of TTML1
   and sets a bad precedence.
   ... I would propose to remove the override of the initial
   value.

   pal: I haven't looked in detail at this - it came from
   SMPTE-TT. I'd like to understand why this
   ... was done. At first glance I'm not opposed to IMSC 1
   removing the override but I'd like us to
   ... understand. I'd recommend to inform SMPTE, even if we don't
   follow what they say. It seems
   ... like the wrong course of action to make changes without
   consulting.
   ... I think this should be added to the liaison as per the
   previous action.

   nigel: Okay I'll add it to the list.

   action-365?

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

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


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

   issue-229?

   <trackbot> issue-229 -- Mixed vertical-horizontal progression
   direction -- closed

   <trackbot>
   [20]http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/tracker/issues/229


     [20] http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/tracker/issues/229


   pal: The starting point of this thread is a SMPTE request, and
   what's been implemented is
   ... significantly different to that request, so I have the same
   question: why?

   glenn: I've always taken the tack that if an issue is filed
   requesting some feature then we need
   ... to look at the intent of the feature and then look at how
   to support it in the context of TTML.
   ... In this case the intent is, in my understanding, is to
   support Tate-chu-yoko in Japanese layout.
   ... I implemented something that matches real world usage in
   Japan and Asia, i.e. what I understood
   ... to be the intent of SMPTE. So I don't view it as being
   substantively different.

   nigel: So the question there is: is that understanding correct,
   or is there some missing set of
   ... semantics?

   pal: I look at it as not just being to do what SMPTE asked, but
   to make TTML as good as it can be.

   glenn: The proposed solution doesn't prevent the text going
   outside the nominal line width.
   ... Also this is basically the same as how it's done in CSS.
   There's a lot of latitude here - it leaves
   ... a lot of room for the client to determine its behaviour.
   The SMPTE request and referenced document
   ... does the same - e.g. it doesn't discuss the issue of how to
   alter the line width in the presence
   ... of an authored Hgroup that would increase the line width.
   It's like inserting an image inline
   ... with some English text in Word - what should happen to the
   line width? What about the rest
   ... of the paragraph? This isn't discussed. So the request is
   under-specified and so is the proposed
   ... solution. I don't view that as necessarily a bad thing but
   as something that needs time to
   ... progress and achieve standardisation. In some cases it may
   need to be left implementation-
   ... specific.

   pal: Glenn, you've made very good points. We should collect
   those places where there is a
   ... divergence and inform SMPTE. SMPTE's response could be one
   of a number of possibilities,
   ... which could help us proceed.

   PROPOSAL: publish the TTML2 ED as a FPWD

   tmichel: Yes, we can go ahead and do that depending on when the
   updated version is updated.
   ... When the document is finalised then I'll request
   publication for Thursday.

   RESOLUTION: We will publish the TTML2 ED with modified SOTD as
   a FPWD

   glenn: Just to be clear this is the current ED not the snapshot

IMSC Test Suite

   pal: I'll respond to tmichel's email about how the test cases
   were generated.

   tmichel: My main question is: are the features all MUST?

   pal: They're all MUST.

   tmichel: So all the features required by IMSC 1 are listed
   there?

   pal: yes.

   tmichel: Can we list implementations too?

   pal: I am going to try to get people to provide results now the
   test cases are mainly done.

   nigel: [adjourns meeting] Thank you all, we have another
   meeting next week, same time, 1 hour.

Summary of Action Items

   [NEW] ACTION: nigel Collate SMPTE issues and draft dispositions
   and circulate on reflector as a precursor to a liaison
   [recorded in
   [21]http://www.w3.org/2015/01/29-tt-minutes.html#action01]

   [End of minutes]
     __________________________________________________________


    Minutes formatted by David Booth's [22]scribe.perl version
    1.140 ([23]CVS log)
    $Date: 2015-01-29 16:18:37 $

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

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