W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-tt@w3.org > February 2016

{minutes} TTWG Meeting 2016-02-18

From: Nigel Megitt <nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2016 16:05:28 +0000
To: TTWG <public-tt@w3.org>
Message-ID: <D2EB9A36.3578D%nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk>
Thanks all for attending today's meeting. Minutes can be found in HTML format at https://www.w3.org/2016/02/18-tt-minutes.html

We made 1 resolution:

RESOLUTION: IMSC 1 has met its exit criteria; we intend to exit CR for IMSC 1 at the earliest available date, having made any further required editorial changes.

According to our Decision Policy the review period for this resolution ends on Thursday 3rd March 2016.

In text format:


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

                               - DRAFT -

                Timed Text Working Group Teleconference

18 Feb 2016

   See also: [2]IRC log

      [2] http://www.w3.org/2016/02/18-tt-irc


          Pierre, Rohit, Nigel

          Andreas, Frans




     * [3]Topics
         1. [4]This meeting
         2. [5]Action Items
         3. [6]Charter
         4. [7]IMSC
         5. [8]TTML2
         6. [9]Remaining agenda items
     * [10]Summary of Action Items
     * [11]Summary of Resolutions

   <scribe> scribe: nigel

This meeting

   nigel: I think it's worth covering the Charter, also IMSC 1
   path to Proposed Rec, and TTML2
   ... AOB?

   rohit: Implementation Report status for IMSC?

   nigel: okay let's cover that in the IMSC topic

Action Items

   nigel: Aside from my action (no progress) everyone else with
   actions is not on the call, so we'll move on.



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

   nigel: BBC has made a pull request at

   ... [goes through the PR as it stands]

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

   pal: It looks like I'll have time to look at the Charter and
   provide feedback.
   ... On the line re addressing compatibility for IMSC what are
   your thoughts on "compatible"?

   nigel: I think the group needs to define and address it, but
   the charter needs to be vague about what that means.

   pal: I agree with that!

   nigel: We changed the success criteria from "all available
   features" to "every available new feature". I hope that's not
   going to cause concern?

   tmichel: No that's not an issue, that's what we need to do.

   nigel: [further changes]. I also want to highlight the section
   about group success being dependent on all the subgroups
   ... having sufficient participation, which we changed to being
   about subgroup success being dependent on that subgroup's

   tmichel: I understand your discomfort with the current wording.
   Let's review further to see if the BBC's proposed approach is

   nigel: Clearly others need to review the charter too, and we
   need to get something for Philippe to take forward quite soon.

   pal: I'll provide my comments by Monday.

   nigel: Fantastic, thank you.
   ... I think Netflix would be well placed to review also.

   rohit: I'll circle back with Netflix and review the proposed

   nigel: Thank you!


   nigel: We have three: 1) Merged/open Pull Requests, 2)
   Implementation Report, 3) path to Proposed Recommendation.

   pal: We have resolved all issues and merged all pull requests,
   aside from an editorial tweaks issue which I'm using to keep
   ... It's for making sure styles are consistent, and other
   editorial details. I plan to implement those just before the
   ... Proposed Recommendation is made.

   Rohit_Puri__Netflix_: That's awesome!

   nigel: +1

   pal: Thanks all for the help in getting there.

   nigel: +1 to that too!
   ... Rohit, you wanted to talk about Implementation Report?

   Rohit_Puri__Netflix_: Just wanted to hear from Pierre about how
   the Implementation Report is looking and whether
   ... the Skynav implementations count towards implementation. In
   one of the emails from Nigel I read that the tests
   ... have been specified in terms of the rendering effect they
   produce, and the TTX/TTV are transformation implementations.

   pal: As far as I know there are at least 2 implementations on
   the report for each test vector that match the vector, which
   ... pass.

   Rohit_Puri__Netflix_: Including the skynav report?

   pal: Yes.

   nigel: It's a good point.

   pal: Sorry to interrupt, but I also have another implementation
   report in my inbox that I received from GIC indicating that
   ... they think they've passed all the test vectors, so I expect
   they'll be formally submitting something in the next few days.

   Rohit_Puri__Netflix_: I think they might be expecting Pierre to
   update the status.

   pal: I'll follow up on that.

   tmichel: Just to clarify it a bit, the Implementation Report is
   really meant, in the W3C process, for moving from CR to PR.
   ... So once we've fulfilled our exit criteria, of course we can
   update the Implementation Report, but it's not required by the
   ... What groups usually do is they spend more time on the test
   suite and enrich the test suite with more tests that are
   ... given by different companies to allow new implementations
   better to test their products. Of course we can also add
   ... to the implementation report if we have time and we feel it
   is worth it.

   pal: That's my understanding. And we have gathered even more
   tests, so the question is how we expand the table.
   ... The point I think we've made is that we've cleared the bar
   necessary for transition.

   tmichel: We don't need to put more features to test on the
   Implementation Report. But we can add to the test suite as much
   as we want.



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

   group: [discussed implementation report and transition to
   proposed recommendation]

   PROPOSAL: IMSC 1 has met its exit criteria; we intend to exit
   CR for IMSC 1 at the earliest available date, having made any
   further required editorial changes.

   pal: My understanding is that we need to wait for the IP review
   and then we can move forwards.

   RESOLUTION: IMSC 1 has met its exit criteria; we intend to exit
   CR for IMSC 1 at the earliest available date, having made any
   further required editorial changes.

   nigel: Having made that point, we will also continue to add
   further implementation reports.

   tmichel: I would think that 1st week March for a Director call
   would be good, and then a 4 week review would take us
   ... beyond the patent exclusion period.

   pal: 29th Feb or 1st March would work for me.

   nigel: Same for me.

   tmichel: I'll check with the Director. About the time slot,
   would the usual time of this meeting work?

   nigel: Yes, 1500 UK time.

   pal: Okay for me too, 0700 Pacific Time.

   tmichel: what about the hours following? (response is an hour
   later okay, two hours later maybe but less ideal)
   ... I have to have a document ready for that, even if it has
   some links that need to be finalised.

   pal: I plan to have that in your hands for review by end of
   Monday so we have a document that's ready by end of next week.

   tmichel: Ok.

   pal: I'm using Respec.js, and what we did for the last CR is
   that every change results in a rendered version to the repo.
   ... That resulted in a mistake last time. Can we not render
   until we have to give it to the web master and use the respec
   ... version for the Director?

   tmichel: If all the rules like pubrules work on it then that's
   ... Even if that doesn't work I can always use the script to
   make an output from your version.

   pal: Okay let's try that. I'm trying to avoid the same silly

   tmichel: I understand the more versions the more opportunity
   for errors.

   nigel: Thanks pierre for all your work on this.

   tmichel: For the resolution, when I will be drafting the
   transition request I need to point to a resolution in the
   ... that the group agrees to request transition. Will you do
   that next week?

   nigel: Yes, we can do that based on the final version - there's
   enough time isn't there?

   tmichel: Yes.

   nigel: That's what we'll do then.


   nigel: Just to note that we have a merged PR, which I
   submitted, which updates all the issue links to point to
   ... The media timing semantics PR is still open.
   ... There's also been discussion of the use of inline block


     [15] https://github.com/w3c/ttml2/issues/146

   nigel: On this one I was concerned that the semantics lead to
   unwanted behaviours, but I think we can get around them
   ... mostly using nested span. The only outstanding issue I
   cannot find a way to solve right now is that BBC wants to be
   ... able to paint background areas behind spans that have the
   same height as lineHeight, and we cannot see a reliable
   ... way to do this. I plan to file an issue within the next
   week unless we can work out how.
   ... I can't see a way yet to achieve this in CSS, and it may
   need a new semantic on tts:padding to allow that to happen.

Remaining agenda items

   nigel: [speeds through in case there's anything to discuss]
   ... On the TTML Versions note, I'm wondering if that should now
   be merged with the Profiles Registry. It seems like we don't
   need both.

   pal: Andreas and Mike may have views on that.

   nigel: True, Cyril too.
   ... okay, that's all the agenda items for today. Thanks
   everyone! Same time next week... [adjourns meeting]

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

    1. [16]IMSC 1 has met its exit criteria; we intend to exit CR
       for IMSC 1 at the earliest available date, having made any
       further required editorial changes.

   [End of minutes]

    Minutes formatted by David Booth's [17]scribe.perl version
    1.144 ([18]CVS log)
    $Date: 2016/02/18 15:56:36 $

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

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

Scribe.perl diagnostic output

   [Delete this section before finalizing the minutes.]
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.144  of Date: 2015/11/17 08:39:34
Check for newer version at [19]http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/


     [19] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/

Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00)

Found Scribe: nigel
Inferring ScribeNick: nigel
Present: Pierre Rohit Nigel
Regrets: Andreas Frans
Found Date: 18 Feb 2016
Guessing minutes URL: [20]http://www.w3.org/2016/02/18-tt-minutes.html
People with action items:

     [20] http://www.w3.org/2016/02/18-tt-minutes.html

   [End of [21]scribe.perl diagnostic output]

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

Received on Thursday, 18 February 2016 16:06:06 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:43:58 UTC