{minutes} TTWG Meeting 2016-02-04

Thanks all for a very productive meeting this week, and for bearing with me on the later than normal start time.

Minutes can be found in HTML format at https://www.w3.org/2016/02/04-tt-minutes.html

In text format:


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

                Timed Text Working Group Teleconference

04 Feb 2016

   See also: [2]IRC log

      [2] http://www.w3.org/2016/02/04-tt-irc


          Harold, Glenn, Mike, Pierre, Nigel, Philippe, dae,
          Andreas, David, tmichel





     * [3]Topics
         1. [4]This Meeting
         2. [5]Action Items
         3. [6]Emmy update
         4. [7]Charter
         5. [8]Profiles registry
         6. [9]IMSC Test Suite
         7. [10]IMSC 1 Issue #111
         8. [11]Transition to PR planning to IMSC.
     * [12]Summary of Action Items
     * [13]Summary of Resolutions

   <scribe> scribe: nigel

This Meeting

   nigel: Goes through agenda. AOB?

   plh: I have an Emmy update.

   pal: One specific topic: roadmap to PR for IMSC 1. I'd like to
   take 15 minutes to create a roadmap.

   plh: Also charter

Action Items


   <trackbot> action-429 -- Mike Dolan to Draft a wg note for the
   profile short name registry and ttml media type registration --
   due 2015-10-08 -- OPEN


     [14] http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/tracker/actions/429

   action-429: [TTWG meeting 2016-02-04] First draft now on
   github; also Andreas added a further column on the wiki page
   that needs to be included in the draft, for how to find profile

   <trackbot> Notes added to action-429 Draft a wg note for the
   profile short name registry and ttml media type registration.


   <trackbot> action-447 -- Glenn Adams to Send pierre the list of
   which scripts are simple and which are complex. -- due
   2015-11-06 -- OPEN


     [15] http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/tracker/actions/447

   action-447: [Meeting 2016-02-04] This has been resolved in the
   text and no longer needs to be done.

   <trackbot> Notes added to action-447 Send pierre the list of
   which scripts are simple and which are complex..

   close action-447

   <trackbot> Closed action-447.


   <trackbot> action-455 -- Glenn Adams to Update ttml2
   spec/readme to include config for keyword replacement. -- due
   2016-01-28 -- OPEN


     [16] http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/tracker/actions/455

   action-455: [meeting 2016-02-04] Nigel made the change but
   discovered the ant commands don't behave as expected; Glenn
   observed the same thing.

   <trackbot> Notes added to action-455 Update ttml2 spec/readme
   to include config for keyword replacement..

   close action-455

   <trackbot> Closed action-455.

Emmy update

   plh: [off the record update]


   plh: I should have mentioned this a few weeks ago - we should
   have sent the charter for review by the end of this week
   ... We are not giving away extensions anymore. The AB has made
   this clear. The minimum I can do is take the
   ... current charter, send it to the AC for review. If you want
   to make more changes I'd like to know what those are.

   pal: Is it possible to post it, give folks a week to comment
   and then close this next week?

   <plh> [17]https://www.w3.org/2014/03/timed-text-charter.html

     [17] https://www.w3.org/2014/03/timed-text-charter.html

   plh: Of course!
   ... I'll put this current charter into a github repo before the
   end of this call and people should make PRs to it and
   ... comments and let me know what needs to be changed. I hope
   that we can send it to W3M for approval in the next 2 weeks,
   ... and to AC for review before the end of the month.

   nigel: Sounds good to me.
   ... Thanks for the kick Plh, it's been in the back of my mind
   for a couple of months!

   plh: I'll send a message to the list also because obviously
   others need to be aware of it.

   nigel: Thanks, let's work on this on github and return to the
   conversation next week.

   <inserted> plh:


     [18] http://w3c.github.io/charter-drafts/timed-text-charter-2016.html

Profiles registry

   <plh> for the charter, see

     [19] https://github.com/w3c/charter-drafts/


     [20] https://github.com/w3c/tt-profile-registry

   mike: Andreas updated the wiki so those edits should be moved
   over to github.
   ... Folks ought to take a look at it. It needs a bit more work
   on the rules for adding and changing things.
   ... Other than that it looks okay to me.

   atai: I'll transfer the information from the wiki to github as
   a first step.

   mike: Thanks Thierry for setting up the HTML page on github

   nigel: That's the first action on this then, and then the next
   action will be for everyone to review it.

IMSC Test Suite

   pal: There are a number of related PRs regarding the test
   suite. Unless someone has an issue with them I would like
   ... to merge all of them following this call. A quick overview:
   ... This is in response to bugs and enhancements suggested both
   to the formal test suite and additional tests
   ... In particular I'd like to point to PR #145

   ... And PR #149 [22]https://github.com/w3c/imsc/pull/149 which
   addresses an issue from PR #140

   ... which unfortunately broke compatibility with EBU-TT-D. PR
   #149 intends to correct that. I've not heard significant
   ... concerns with these. Fixing the bugs that were introduced
   is really important so I'd like to proceed following the call.

     [21] https://github.com/w3c/imsc/pull/145

     [22] https://github.com/w3c/imsc/pull/149

     [23] https://github.com/w3c/imsc/pull/140

   <atai> +1

   glenn: Yes from me.

   nigel: Fine for me.

   pal: Okay thank you so I will do that.

IMSC 1 Issue #111

   pal: We seem really close so can we try to do this in 10

   glenn: I thought so, but there were changes made that I'm not
   happy with.


     [24] https://github.com/w3c/imsc/issues/111

   pal: I posted an updated proposal just before the call.

   nigel: I'm concerned that the different proposals don't share a
   lot of words. As Editor, Pierre can you take us through?

   glenn: I don't want to solve a determination of what profile a
   document instance conforms to.
   ... What I'm proposing is to determine a profile to be used in
   processing a document. The document instance may
   ... not conform to that.


   <inserted> [above +1 was from nigel]

   pal: Okay and that sounds fine with me.

   glenn: Pierre and I had some offline discussion and I thought
   we were extremely close to some common language
   ... but the latest update seems to be radically different.

   pal: Okay I apologise for that - I didn't wish to introduce
   radical differences.

   glenn: I also want to point to the multiple resolved profiles
   issue - it needs to be singular.

   pal: On the second one I want to understand what happens if a
   document signals conformance to more than one
   ... profile e.g. using documentConformsToStandard..

   glenn: Yes, could be. The profile that the processor uses is
   always a single profile ultimately.

   pal: Okay so going back to the proposal from 11 hours ago the
   first paragraph permits the processor to pick a
   ... single profile out of many. Is that correct?

   glenn: No there could be more than one.

   pal: But the resolved profile is just one.

   glenn: The process ultimately comes to a single resolved
   profile. The initial step can generate a set of profiles.
   ... The first paragraph describes the goal via the input
   information and the ultimate result, a single resolved profile.
   ... The paragraphs that follow show how that is achieved.

   nigel: The second paragraph doesn't allow for multiple profiles
   being signalled.

   pal: That's my point.

   glenn: So could you explain how they could be signalled?

   pal: ebuttm:documentConformsToStandard can have multiple

   nigel: Or there could be more than one ttp:profile elements
   with different use attributes.

   glenn: Okay I didn't notice that.

   atai: You're still talking about an IMSC processor, correct?

   pal: Thanks for raising that. As I read that it's a processor
   that supports IMSC I and/or IMSC T and also possibly other

   atai: I thought we were just looking for IMSC I or IMSC T.

   pal: I think Glenn's proposal covers profiles outside IMSC. I
   think that text would be best in the core TTML document by the

   glenn: The intent of that text is to be neutral on the subject
   of processors that support multiple profiles.
   ... The answer could be IMSC-T, IMSC-I or undefined, from my
   text. It's not intended to handle a 4th answer that may be some
   other profile.

   pal: Looking at the last comment on the thread...



     [25] https://github.com/w3c/imsc/issues/111#issuecomment-179898471

   pal: The first paragraph needs to change 'conforms to' to
   'uses' or equivalent.

   nigel: I'm not sure the second paragraph addresses the multiple
   profile indication issue either. It's random which
   ... profile the processor will choose.

   pal: It shouldn't matter which is chosen.

   glenn: But the document may be lying and not any of the
   signalled profiles.

   pal: But that's off the reservation.

   nigel: My concern is that if we allow a random choice then it's
   possible that the presentation may be different depending on
   which profile is chosen, and that's a random choice so we don't
   achieve interoperability.

   atai: There's no way to signal preference so I think what
   Pierre says is right.

   glenn: Looking at "If one of the resolved profile is a profile
   supported by the Processor, then the Processor SHOULD process
   the document instance according to the resolved profile."
   ... and one of the profiles is TTML1 and the processor chooses
   that then we've jumped outside the intent of this material.
   ... The algorithm that I proposed previously always chooses one
   of the IMSC profiles or undefined. I'm not happy that
   ... this proposal is allowed to produce a different profile
   that's outside the scope of this context.

   pal: I don't want to be bound by IMSC if there's something else
   better that my processor can do later.

   glenn: That's outside the scope of this. Say for example that
   the document claims TTML2 and IMSC-T and I choose TTML2.
   ... Now we're outside the IMSC processing space.
   ... The intent is to work within the IMSC processing space.
   ... We could change to "If it chooses a non-IMSC profile then
   this specification no longer applies" then that would address
   my concern.

   nigel: My concern is if presentation would differ depending on
   the chosen profile. Consider a document that signals
   ... both IMSC-T and EBU-TT-D. Would it make a difference?

   pal: I'll take the ball on this. Can we discuss after this

   nigel: We need to spend some time on PR planning too.
   ... I'll leave the call open so the conversation can continue.

Transition to PR planning to IMSC.

   pal: What are the criteria?

   tmichel: Firstly to meet the PR exit criteria. Glenn's recent
   input is very good news because now all the tests have
   ... two implementations passing so we have fulfilled 100% our
   CR exit criteria.
   ... Furthermore Glenn says that early March he will provide
   another implementation so that could be considered as

   <plh> [26]https://www.w3.org/2015/Process-20150901/#rec-pr

     [26] https://www.w3.org/2015/Process-20150901/#rec-pr

   tmichel: a third independent implementation. Anyway we are
   already fine. Then we have to wait for the end of CR
   ... which is set until Feb 28 I think. We cannot move to PR
   before early March.

   pal: And we have to resolve issues.

   nigel: Don't we also have a requirement to resolve issues?

   plh: Yes there is always a requirement to resolve issues, but
   you can always make the case to the Director if you demonstrate
   ... that the issue doesn't have to be addressed.

   pal: The goal in my mind is to resolve or defer all issues.

   nigel: +1

   plh: You guys already have plans to work on IMSC 2 so you might
   decide to defer for the sake of the timeline.

   pal: Yes we've done that already in the past.

   plh: Another consideration is normative dependencies. I guess
   you don't have a problem but the Director will look
   ... at those and how stable they are.

   pal: I think we're good on that.

   tmichel: That's clear.

   pal: Any objection to moving to PR on Feb 28th or as soon as
   possible after?

   nigel: Do we not need to issue a new CR depending on the
   resolution of the issues?

   glenn: That's up to the group. I'm probably going to be happy
   with not doing a 4th CR but incorporating into a PR.

   plh: If you make substantive changes you won't have a choice -
   because of the patent implications then you have to move to a
   new CR.
   ... There's a way to prevent the call for exclusions from
   getting in the way via your AC rep.
   ... As it is today the Director will force you to wait until
   the end of the Call for Exclusions at the end of March.

   pal: So you're saying that we cannot transition to PR until eof

   plh: The Director could decide to start the PR review e.g.
   mid-March, knowing that the CfE would run out before the
   ... AC has to give the final answer. So I would not worry too
   much about that. The CfE is likely to end before the PR.
   ... If you get every single AC rep of this WG to waive their
   rights for exclusion then you can skip it for a new CR.

   pal: I'd like to set a goal for us to make a concerted effort
   to make resolutions that are not substantive changes.

   plh: I agree that the perfect is the enemy of the good-enough.

   pal: I want to clarify that if there are bugs we should
   definitely fix them but I'd like to encourage us to make an
   ... to try to move towards PR at the end of Feb and if we hit
   an insurmountable object then we'll deal with it.

   david: I just need to bring in our perspective. There are other
   groups working on other standards. We're working really

   <atai> +1 to what pierre said

   david: hard to achieve a unified standard, so if this splits
   then the industry that's waiting for us will move on and we'll
   ... end up with fractures, not what we want, a unified subtitle
   ... Netflix wants us to get IMSC 1 adopted as soon as possible.

   mike: I think the same can be said from ATSC and CEA/CTA. I
   think it's really important that this work advance,
   ... although don't do anything unnatural. This ought to move as
   reasonably as expeditiously possible to Rec. It's
   ... growingly inconvenient that this isn't published.
   ... Just echoing my colleague from Netflix there that we need
   to get to publication.

   <inserted> nigel: It seems that we're all in agreement that we
   want to publish as soon as possible.

   glenn: I just wanted to indicate that as far as I know none of
   the current issues involve a new feature. They are
   ... semantic clarifications. In the past we have considered
   those to be non-substantive.

   nigel: We're out of time so I'll adjourn now. Thanks very much
   for a very productive meeting everyone. [adjourns meeting]

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

   [End of minutes]

    Minutes formatted by David Booth's [27]scribe.perl version
    1.144 ([28]CVS log)
    $Date: 2016/02/04 17:04:06 $

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

     [28] 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, 4 February 2016 17:06:29 UTC