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

{minutes} TTWG Meeting 2015-03-05

From: Nigel Megitt <nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2015 16:13:15 +0000
To: Timed Text Working Group <public-tt@w3.org>
Message-ID: <D11E302B.1C5B0%nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk>
Thanks all for attending today's meeting. Minutes in HTML format are at: http://www.w3.org/2015/03/05-tt-minutes.html

We made one Resolution:

RESOLUTION: permit but not require all TTWG Editors to use this new tool to publish automatically on any day of the week, following a group decision to publish, with the existing manual publishing process on Tuesdays and Thursdays still available as an alternative.
The review period for this resolution under our Decision Process ends on Thursday 19th March.

Minutes in text format:


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

                Timed Text Working Group Teleconference

05 Mar 2015

   See also: [2]IRC log

      [2] http://www.w3.org/2015/03/05-tt-irc


          glenn, Frans, pal, nigel, tmichel, jdsmith





     * [3]Topics
         1. [4]This meeting
         2. [5]WD publication process
         3. [6]Action Items
         4. [7]F2F
         5. [8]Issues
     * [9]Summary of Action Items

   <trackbot> Date: 05 March 2015

   <scribe> scribe: nigel

This meeting

   pal: Apologies, I'm only available for a couple of minutes


   <trackbot> Action-378 -- Pierre-Anthony Lemieux to Draft smpte
   request including dispositions from action-369 and
   backgroundcolor initial value question -- due 2015-03-05 --


     [10] http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/tracker/actions/378

   pal: I haven't yet managed to draft the SMPTE response, and see
   that there's been some further
   ... discussion on the reflector.
   ... I'm also interested to know if there's any review feedback
   on the IMSC 1 test suite yet?

   nigel: I haven't been able to do this yet.

   pal: On the SMPTE request, I see 2 parts - there's a TTML2 part
   in which we propose to dispose
   ... of the SMPTE requests. One approach is to wait until our WD
   for wide review, when TTML2 has
   ... stabilised. The other question is about SMPTE-TT and the
   redefinition of the initial value for
   ... background colour on the default region. This has an impact
   on IMSC 1 as well as TTML 2.
   ... Perhaps we could send two different communications -
   they'll probably go to different people
   ... in SMPTE. That's my proposal, to send 2 messages.

   nigel: I don't object to this - I have had the sense from Mike
   when he's been on the call in previous
   ... meetings that there's some impatience with the time it's
   taken us to respond to the SMPTE
   ... requests.

   pal: Okay, I still think two messages should be drafted. I'll
   endeavour to have that ready for
   ... next week.

   nigel: Were there any specific points on the draft dispositions
   sent on the reflector?

   pal: I haven't caught up with that yet.

   nigel: I think we can keep going on the reflector for that as
   we're nearly at resolution and have
   ... good momentum.
   ... Back to the agenda for today, is there any other business?

   group: no other business

WD publication process

   nigel: We discussed this last week, but without Glenn.
   ... I updated the proposal and put it into the agenda.

   PROPOSAL: permit but not require all TTWG Editors to use this
   new tool to publish automatically on any day of the week,
   following a group decision to publish, with the existing manual
   publishing process on Tuesdays and Thursdays still available as
   an alternative.

   glenn: So long as I don't have to change my process I'm fine -
   I don't care what happens after I've
   ... passed it off to the Chair or Staff Contact.

   nigel: Up to now I haven't been involved directly in the
   publication process, in terms of pushing
   ... documents onto the web server.

   tmichel: Either I or the Editor or the Chair could use the new
   tool, and I could still use the old
   ... process with the web master. As I said in an earlier email
   that doesn't change anything about
   ... the approval process for the group to agree to publish.
   ... In some working groups there is one decision allowing the
   editor to publish when they feel
   ... like it - that's orthogonal to the publication process

   RESOLUTION: permit but not require all TTWG Editors to use this
   new tool to publish automatically on any day of the week,
   following a group decision to publish, with the existing manual
   publishing process on Tuesdays and Thursdays still available as
   an alternative.

Action Items

   nigel: We already covered this earlier - there was only one
   action item.
   ... Just to note for the minutes that after last week's meeting
   I closed off the action items that
   ... we had covered but that I'd forgotten to close at the time.



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

   nigel: So far we have myself, Glenn and Dae Kim from Netflix
   (I've suggested to him that he may
   ... wish to join the group too).
   ... If you're able to attend then please add your name to the
   wiki page.
   ... Looking at the agenda, I've added a couple of items, to
   review the TTML <--> WebVTT mapping
   ... - though I haven't seen any straw man document for this

   glenn: Where are we on VTT? Will anyone attend to work on it at
   the upcoming meeting?

   nigel: I'm not sure.
   ... That feeds in nicely to the other item I added as a
   possible, which is to review and where
   ... possible align the semantics of new/in development features
   in TTML2 and WebVTT.
   ... Obviously this depends on having the right people present.

   tmichel: For WebVTT, there are some issues to resolve in terms
   of IPP, which I'm pursuing.
   ... I've also discussed this with plh. Plus I've started
   getting review from dependency groups
   ... i18n, WCAG, WAI-PF and CSS WG and HTML WG.

   nigel: Back to the F2F, are there any other agenda items to

   group: none at the moment



   <trackbot> issue-294 -- Style attribute to prevent overflow by
   shrinking text to fit on a line -- pending review


     [12] http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/tracker/issues/294

   nigel: This was mine. Glenn's proposal was to do nothing for
   the time being because it's too complex.
   ... And there's the option to use the 'font' element for more
   consistent rendering and the
   ... tts:extent="fitContent auto".

   glenn: There are a couple of scenarios to consider.
   ... 1) Ruby
   ... 2) textCombine semantics of putting a horizontal block into
   a vertical line.
   ... I haven't given it complete thought but I'm in the process
   of implementing support and
   ... thinking about this issue. There's a fair amount of
   implementation detail to work through.
   ... One of them is the sizing of Ruby. The Japanese layout
   guidance makes some recommendations
   ... about sizing text, but CSS Ruby and HTML5 Ruby are fairly
   silent on the subject of sizing.
   ... So I've been assuming that the UA is free to scale the size
   of the Ruby annotation text to fit
   ... into the annotation box that's most appropriate for use
   with the base text. Similarly for
   ... textCombine horizontal, one may try to scale text to fit
   into the line height (block progression
   ... dimension). One way to think about that is that we have
   fontSize="auto" which tells the UA it
   ... can do what it wants to automatically fit the font size to
   do something appropriate, which
   ... suggests that in those cases the author should also be able
   to specify a definite font size,
   ... and if that causes the text to extend outside the nominal
   box then that would happen. I've
   ... been mulling over an "auto" value for fontSize but haven't
   written anything down yet.
   ... If we were to introduce it then we might define some
   content fitting semantics for something
   ... other than just Ruby and horizontal inline boxes.

   nigel: That suggests to me that we reopen the issue and move it
   to v.next for the time being.
   ... I've done that directly on the issue and added a note.


   <trackbot> issue-297 -- Include Profile Designator in Profile
   Definition Document -- pending review


     [13] http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/tracker/issues/297

   nigel: The comments suggest this has been done using the
   designator attribute.
   ... This is in ttp:profile.

   close issue-297

   <trackbot> Closed issue-297.


   <trackbot> issue-300 -- Prior interpretation of the correct
   fallback for tts:origin -- pending review


     [14] http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/tracker/issues/300

   <glenn> glenn: In this context, the phrase closest supported
   value means the value for which the Euclidean distance between
   the computed origin and the supported origin is minimized. If
   there are multiple closest supported values equally distant
   from the computed value, then the value least distant from
   [0,0], i.e., closest to the coordinate space origin, is used.

   nigel: That note is all I think is required for the issue.

   glenn: That post is the note in TTML2. It's the same language
   as in TTML1. It doesn't look like
   ... there's any inconsistency.
   ... (with the second edition anyway).

   nigel: I agree we should close this - there's no apparent
   difference between TTML1SE and TTML2
   ... here.

   close issue-300

   <trackbot> Closed issue-300.


   <trackbot> issue-356 -- Add support for text emphasis semantics
   -- pending review


     [15] http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/tracker/issues/356

   nigel: This has been implemented with the tts:textEmphasis
   attribute on span. There's an Ed Note
   ... for adding an example fragment and image.

   glenn: This is focused on some east Asian/CJK features that add
   dots or marks near the text,
   ... sort of like Ruby, but semantically they're like
   emboldening the weight of a font - that technique
   ... is not generally used; the dot is used for semantic
   emphasis instead.
   ... It's called kendot in Japanese.
   ... here's a better reference for the minutes:


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

   pal: In terms of Japanese reviewers, did TTWG formalise the
   liaison with ARIB?

   nigel: Yes we did. I think it's in the minutes from a couple of
   weeks ago.

   pal: Perhaps in due time it would make sense to actively seek
   ARIB's feedback

   nigel: That will happen anyway because my approach will be to
   seek review from all of our
   ... direct liaisons, as well as the dependencies listed in the
   charter, when we publish the WD for
   ... wide review.

   pal: Okay, in the meantime if we have specific questions on CJK
   features we could maybe ask
   ... targeted questions in a direct liaison message.

   nigel: +1

   close issue-356

   <trackbot> Closed issue-356.

   nigel: We're out of time for this week - meet again same time
   next week. Don't forget to review
   ... the IMSC 1 test suite. [adjourns meeting]
   ... Thanks everyone!

Summary of Action Items

   [End of minutes]

    Minutes formatted by David Booth's [17]scribe.perl version
    1.140 ([18]CVS log)
    $Date: 2015-03-05 16:08:01 $

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

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

Received on Thursday, 5 March 2015 16:13:45 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:43:46 UTC