- From: Nigel Megitt <nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk>
- Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2016 15:53:55 +0000
- To: Timed Text Working Group <public-tt@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <D3357B5A.397BC%nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk>
Thanks all who attended today's meeting. Minutes in HTML are at https://www.w3.org/2016/04/14-tt-minutes.html
In text format:
[1]W3C
[1] http://www.w3.org/
Timed Text Working Group Teleconference
14 Apr 2016
See also: [2]IRC log
[2] http://www.w3.org/2016/04/14-tt-irc
Attendees
Present
Nigel, Andreas, Pierre, plh
Regrets
Glenn, Frans
Chair
Nigel
Scribe
Nigel
Contents
* [3]Topics
1. [4]This Meeting
2. [5]Action Items
3. [6]Charter
4. [7]IMSC
5. [8]Profiles registry
* [9]Summary of Action Items
* [10]Summary of Resolutions
__________________________________________________________
<scribe> scribe: Nigel
This Meeting
nigel: We aren't quorate to discuss much today but there are a
few topics we can cover for the record.
... AOB?
atai: I'd like to look at the status of the profile registry.
nigel: Okay
Action Items
action-460?
<trackbot> action-460 -- Nigel Megitt to Creat an issue to
draft a ttml2 section on customisation. -- due 2016-04-14 --
PENDINGREVIEW
<trackbot>
[11]http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/tracker/actions/460
[11] http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/tracker/actions/460
nigel: I created [12]https://github.com/w3c/ttml2/issues/156
[12] https://github.com/w3c/ttml2/issues/156
close action-460
<trackbot> Closed action-460.
action-457
<trackbot> action-457 -- Pierre-Anthony Lemieux to Alert
Unicode upon publication of IMSC1 -- due 2016-04-15 -- OPEN
<trackbot>
[13]http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/tracker/actions/457
[13] http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/tracker/actions/457
pal: Can we move the date of this to after the 21st?
nigel: will do.
... done - made it the 22nd.
action-456?
<trackbot> action-456 -- Pierre-Anthony Lemieux to Collect use
cases and testimonials for potential IMSC1 press release -- due
2016-04-07 -- OPEN
<trackbot>
[14]http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/tracker/actions/456
[14] http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/tracker/actions/456
pal: I've done this - it's in Karen's hands. I have interest
from a number of W3C members and other non-member implementors.
close action-456
<trackbot> Closed action-456.
nigel: Thanks for collecting those!
Charter
plh: I've got all the internal green lines - it's now in the
hands of the comm team. The
... AC review should be under way tomorrow, unless there are
questions on the draft.
... I made a few changes to the draft:
<plh> [15]https://github.com/w3c/charter-drafts/pull/50
[15] https://github.com/w3c/charter-drafts/pull/50
<plh>
[16]https://github.com/w3c/charter-drafts/pull/50/commits/15ced
1d6e3a42e03fa284a8a306c228b4c3032d2
[16] https://github.com/w3c/charter-drafts/pull/50/commits/15ced1d6e3a42e03fa284a8a306c228b4c3032d2
<plh> and should detail any known security or privacy
implications for implementers, Web authors, and end users
plh: The main change is the one regarding security
requirements. They add the words:
... ", and should detail any known security or privacy
implications for implementers, Web authors, and end users"
pal: For TTML there is a requirements doc.
<plh> [17]https://www.w3.org/TR/security-privacy-questionnaire/
[17] https://www.w3.org/TR/security-privacy-questionnaire/
plh: This is from the TAG. Writing a security or privacy
section should address the questions in there.
pal: That's a huge change!
plh: What do you mean?
pal: We didn't have to do this before, now we have 17 extra
requirements.
plh: They are questions. I would have thought that for TTML,
which doesn't use scripting,
... a lot of them will not apply. For example we're not
creating an API to track user language preferences.
... So most of them will not apply. If you are defining an API
then you will have to answer those questions.
... I would not worry about this. Obviously IMSC 1 will be a
Rec before this applies.
... The questionnaire was developed for people to consider at
least the minimum questions.
nigel: I would welcome this. The questionnaire doesn't get a
link from the draft charter,
... which could help to scope/describe what is meant, but
they're sensible questions and
... useful to reference.
plh: I'm happy to link to it in the charter as an example.
pal: I'd like that to be present.
plh: The other pull request changes were not as impactful. W3
legal made me slightly
... tweak the wording on patent commitments. It's slightly more
open wording now.
... There were also minor grammatical changes.
... I rejected the proposal to put security into the success
criteria and put them in the scope instead
... next to accessibility.
nigel: Makes sense.
... So what's the timeline now?
plh: If it goes tomorrow then I will propose a deadline for AC
review of Friday May 13.
... We're looking at mid-May for end of charter review. In the
meantime you can keep
... working.
nigel: Thank you.
pal: Great news.
plh: I'll add the questionnaire link to the charter.
IMSC
plh: The bad news here is that Karen is in Montreal - although
I said last week that we
... were targeting April 19 I learned today that it's been
moved to April 21.
... I've told them that's the latest that we'll publish the
Rec.
pal: I've provided Karen with testimonials and technical
bullets, as well as a picture for the PR.
plh: Thanks for doing all that. They're still committed to
doing the press release.
... The document is ready by the way. There's a little internal
work to get the final approval for publication.
nigel: The only final approval is from the Director right?
plh: Yes, the WBS closed without issue.
... I created the Rec version by copying the PR and updating
the headers and status.
... Pierre has given it the once over and said it's fine. I've
removed the link to the
... implementation report because I don't like to put it there
- it has a tendency to go stale.
pal: I like that idea. Thierry has archived the IR, which will
be linked from the PR version.
... He created a new live page for implementation and test
vectors, which I have to update.
nigel: Are you suggesting linking to that from the Rec?
pal: No, I don't recommend doing that.
plh: The document itself is ready to go.
nigel: Is it too soon to start thinking about the next steps
for IMSC?
pal: No, as soon as we're done with this my plan is to start
listing features that we want
... in IMSC 2 and also tackle the question of how to handle
those features in IMSC 1 that
... are also now in TTML2 but are expressed with a different
syntax.
... It would be a disservice to the industry to obligate folk
to do things completely differently.
... Either we deprecate but still support the old way and
introduce a new way or we
... do something else [that I don't know yet].
plh: I had a separate but related question related to the IMSC
1 publication and the
... meaning of Latest Published Version.
<plh> [18]http://www.w3.org/TR/ttml-imsc1/
[18] http://www.w3.org/TR/ttml-imsc1/
plh: When I was preparing the Rec I realised that the latest
published version points to the
... above link. Be aware that we have more and more WGs dealing
with versioning questions.
... For example in CSS what they do nowadays is have 2 latest
published links, one for
<plh> [19]http://www.w3.org/TR/ttml-imsc1/
[19] http://www.w3.org/TR/ttml-imsc1/
<plh> [20]http://www.w3.org/TR/ttml-imsc/
[20] http://www.w3.org/TR/ttml-imsc/
plh: the latest version of IMSC and one for the latest version
of this version.
... The question is do we want a "latest IMSC" link as well as
a "latest IMSC 1"?
... I don't know if there's a use case for that.
nigel: I think there is a use case. What do you think Pierre?
pal: I think that's a really good question but I don't have an
answer now. There's a
... difference from a device and an authorial perspective. From
an authorial perspective
... if IMSC.next is a superset of IMSC 1 then that's great.
From an implementor's
... perspective it may introduce a bunch of new features. I
haven't thought about it yet.
plh: Can you think about it and tell me if you think there's a
need for it, and with
... apologies for bringing this up so late, it's going to be
much harder to do after we've
... published the Rec. If we can decide by Tuesday then I just
have to ask the Director
... if it's okay to add the link.
<plh> Latest published version:
[21]http://www.w3.org/TR/ttml-imsc/
[21] http://www.w3.org/TR/ttml-imsc/
<plh> Latest published version 1:
[22]http://www.w3.org/TR/ttml-imsc1/
[22] http://www.w3.org/TR/ttml-imsc1/
plh: We'd do something like the above - one version-less, and
one with a level number,
... and both would appear at the top of the specification.
pal: Should we use the term "level"?
plh: No, you don't have to call it that - CSS does it that way,
but they may be the only one to do that.
... Other groups don't. In WebPerf we moved to this system with
a slight difference: we
... don't wait for documents to get to CR, we just publish a
link to the latest work in progress.
pal: One question that comes to mind is: say IMSC 2 brings new
features that need more
... thinking authorially and implementation-wise. How do you
warn or explain to people
... that there are significant implications to clicking that
link? Is the reader expected to
... compare the two specs and see the differences?
plh: The only way I can think of is to have a section in the
spec that lists the differences.
... In CSS they don't mind it because it's normal to publish
like this.
pal: And what if we do an IMSC 1.1?
plh: In that case I would say the latest IMSC 1 link would
point to 1.1 when we consider
... it to be stable enough. The Maths spec have adopted an even
more complex scheme.
<plh> [23]https://www.w3.org/TR/MathML/
[23] https://www.w3.org/TR/MathML/
nigel: I think we should do this.
plh: The MathML spec as above says "Latest MathML 3 version"
and "Latest MathML Recommendation"
pal: What about an intermediary page?
plh: We can add that as a top header of the specification as
well.
pal: Imagine we have IMSC 1.1 and IMSC 2, where 1.1 has fewer
changes than 2. Both
... are relevant for different use cases. Some people may keep
with 1.1 and others may
... wait for and then adopt 2. We're in danger of stopping
people from noticing 1.1.
plh: Unless you click on the "Latest IMSC 1 version" link?
... That would always point to the latest version of IMSC 1,
while the "Latest IMSC version"
... link would point to 2 when it exists or 1.1 before, for
example.
nigel: I think we shouldn't restrict the "Latest IMSC" link to
a Recommendation though.
<plh> Latest IMSC version: [24]http://www.w3.org/TR/imsc/
[24] http://www.w3.org/TR/imsc/
<plh> Latest IMSC 1 version: [25]http://www.w3.org/TR/imsc/
[25] http://www.w3.org/TR/imsc/
pal: So imagine we have IMSC 1 2nd edition, IMSC 1.1 and IMSC
2. If you click on the
... "Latest IMSC 1" what should that do - go to IMSC 1 2nd
edition or IMSC 1.1?
nigel: So an IMSC 1 2nd Ed would incorporate errata?
pal: Exactly. That's the most important link to have first.
That's what I think should be
... "Latest Version".
... My question is from IMSC 1 1st edition would the next
level/version link point to IMSC 1
... or IMSC 2?
... I'm thinking of having an intermediate "roadmap" page with
the roadmap, telling you
... all the latest published and in progress IMSC documents.
nigel: That could be a wiki page?
<plh> [26]https://www.w3.org/TR/soap/
[26] https://www.w3.org/TR/soap/
pal: Or on /TR as a simple roadmap document.
plh: SOAP is the instance I know of.
pal: It would have no normative content.
... I can draft that quickly with Respec. Today there would be
only one entry.
nigel: I like this idea - it's a good future proof way to deal
with it.
pal: Okay, I'll post it to the list.
Profiles registry
atai: I just wanted to point out that we need to bring this to
a state where we can
... publish it as soon as possible - people are asking for the
information.
plh: Is there anything I can do to help on this?
<plh> [27]https://github.com/w3c/tt-profile-registry/pull/3
[27] https://github.com/w3c/tt-profile-registry/pull/3
atai: I think there's a minimal editorial thing - to separate a
big table into two smaller ones.
plh: So we're waiting to merge before resolving?
atai: The only thing outstanding is to resolve conflicts,
merge, then split the table.
plh: Can we merge the PR?
nigel: Yes.
plh: Shall I resolve the conflicts and merge?
group: Yes.
plh: Then we can raise splitting the table as a separate issue.
nigel: Yes, sounds good.
atai: Then the other question is if there's a reference from
IMSC to the Profile Registry?
plh: It's not published yet. Do we have agreement from the
group to publish?
nigel: Not yet.
pal: We don't have to have a link.
plh: We can always link to it from the TR/imsc page once we
have one.
pal: True.
atai: Possibly we should also check with Mike Dolan because I
think he has some more
... information to add to the table.
plh: I'll do the merge and then you can guys can proceed.
nigel: Thanks!
plh: If I cannot resolve the merge I'll reach out to you.
atai: I think it's only additional information, just has to be
merged in layout and style.
... There are no substantive conflicts.
plh: ok
nigel: Thanks - that was an interesting meeting in unexpected
ways. We're out of time now though. Meet same time next week.
[Adjourns meeting]
Summary of Action Items
Summary of Resolutions
[End of minutes]
__________________________________________________________
Minutes formatted by David Booth's [28]scribe.perl version
1.144 ([29]CVS log)
$Date: 2016/04/14 15:51:58 $
[28] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
[29] 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, 14 April 2016 15:54:22 UTC