- From: Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com>
- Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2016 11:50:01 -0700
- To: Nigel Megitt <nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk>
- Cc: TTWG <public-tt@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CACQ=j+dzhmVN2At2=ME=CBOvh2Breo8pSNzkiXApneK8ecoMVw@mail.gmail.com>
On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 9:05 AM, Nigel Megitt <nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk>
wrote:
> 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.*
>
+1
>
> According to our Decision Policy the review period for this resolution
> ends on Thursday 3rd March 2016.
>
> In text format:
>
> [1]W3C
>
> [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
>
> Attendees
>
> Present
> Pierre, Rohit, Nigel
>
> Regrets
> Andreas, Frans
>
> Chair
> nigel
>
> Scribe
> nigel
>
> Contents
>
> * [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.
>
> Charter
>
> [12]https://github.com/w3c/charter-drafts/
>
> [12] https://github.com/w3c/charter-drafts/
>
> nigel: BBC has made a pull request at
> [13]https://github.com/w3c/charter-drafts/pull/19
> ... [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
> participation.
>
> tmichel: I understand your discomfort with the current wording.
> Let's review further to see if the BBC's proposed approach is
> acceptable.
>
> 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
> charter.
>
> nigel: Thank you!
>
> IMSC
>
> 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
> track.
> ... 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
> W3C.
> ... 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_Repo
> rt
>
> [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
> okay.
> ... 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
> mistake.
>
> 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
> minutes
> ... 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.
>
> TTML2
>
> nigel: Just to note that we have a merged PR, which I
> submitted, which updates all the issue links to point to
> github.
> ... The media timing semantics PR is still open.
> ... There's also been discussion of the use of inline block
> semantics.
>
> [15]https://github.com/w3c/ttml2/issues/146
>
> [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.
>
> It would be useful to see some images depicting desired results; this
looks similar to a problem I addressed in an SVG implementation (batik) to
add support for background coloring of text and tspan elements, wherein I
defined:
background-color: <color>
background-mode: bbox | lineHeight
background-padding: <length>{1,4}
The second of these, background-mode, determined the extent of the
rectangles to colorize; the third of these, background-padding, allows
manually extending the background color rectangle on any of the edges.
We could do something like this in TTML2; however, it might not readily
translate to an HTML/CSS based renderer.
> 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/
> scribe/ <http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/>
>
> [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 18:50:52 UTC