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

{minutes} TTWG Meeting 2015-12-25

From: Nigel Megitt <nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2016 16:15:32 +0000
To: TTWG <public-tt@w3.org>
Message-ID: <D2F4D6D7.362AC%nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk>
Thanks all for attending today's meeting. Minutes can be found at: https://www.w3.org/2016/02/25-tt-minutes.html

The group made 2 resolutions:

RESOLUTION: The group does not believe that the changes for issues #136 and #146 have practical impact or are inconsistent with the previously published CR.

RESOLUTION: The group requests transition of IMSC 1 to Proposed Recommendation.

The review period for each of these resolutions, according to the group's Decision Policy, ends on 10th March 2016.

In text format:


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

                Timed Text Working Group Teleconference

25 Feb 2016

   See also: [2]IRC log

      [2] http://www.w3.org/2016/02/25-tt-irc


          Nigel, Glenn, Thierry, Pierre, Harold, David





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

   <scribe> scribe: Nigel

This Meeting

   nigel: [runs through proposed agenda]
   ... AOB?

   group: no AOB

Action Items

   nigel: Goes through action items.


   <trackbot> action-383 -- Glenn Adams to Missing XML declaration
   -- due 2015-04-30 -- OPEN


     [11] http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/tracker/actions/383

   glenn: I believe I've closed that because it was essentially a
   byte order mark issue that was appearing and should not have

   action-383: [Meeting 2016-02-25] Glenn notes that this was
   completed; the cause was an erroneous byte order mark that has
   now been removed.

   <trackbot> Notes added to action-383 Missing XML declaration.

   close action-383

   <trackbot> Closed action-383.


   nigel: The status here is that we have a draft PR doc that
   Pierre has generated, and a meeting with the Director

   tmichel: I think we need to have a new draft with 2 small
   ... 1. The CR version date (for the previous version) was wrong
   due to a bug - it should be 28 January 2016.
   ... (it currently says 2015).
   ... 2. The end of the PR review should not end before the 8th
   April, for 2 reasons: first we need a 4 week PR review
   ... and second the IPR exclusion period. Currently it says
   April 1 so that needs to be changed.

   pal: Thank you, I'll do that immediately.

   tmichel: It's not really urgent but I would prefer to have
   everything fixed for the Director.

   pal: I'll get it to you in the next few minutes.

   tmichel: Then I'll post it to the URL I used before, and after
   the Director's call move to the publication date. I think
   ... we had agreed 8th March. I don't think we can do better
   than that.

   pal: Fine with me.

   tmichel: We'll know the final date of publication after the
   Director's meeting.

   PROPOSAL: The group requests transition of IMSC 1 to Proposed

   glenn: I have a comment on the summary of substantive changes.
   On the second item, issue #146, I suggest
   ... removing the adjective "incongruous".
   ... Also just to note that you'll probably be asked why they
   are substantive. I personally would not have called
   ... either of them substantive, but if you want to you'd better
   have a rationale for why they are substantive.



     [12] https://www.w3.org/TR/2016/PR-ttml-imsc1-20160302/substantive-changes-summary.txt

   nigel: I'm happy to make the case that by the precise wording
   of the Process they do count as substantive even
   ... though by most ordinary standards they are not substantive
   and therefore we are happy to include them
   ... directly in the PR.

   glenn: You might also note that some members do not consider
   them to be substantive.

   nigel: Yes, good idea.



     [13] https://www.w3.org/2015/Process-20150901/#substantive-change

   nigel: Let's double check these.


     [14] https://github.com/w3c/imsc/issues/136

   glenn: I'm basing my comment on the wording "clearly" in point
   3 of ยง6.2.5
   ... For this issue I would say that the previous language was
   simply erroneous and it's a correction.


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

   nigel: Here we have removed a term that did not have a defined

   tmichel: I need to know if these are substantive changes before
   making the request for transition, which I would like to do.

   nigel: Any other views?

   pal: I'm happy either to remove them from the list of
   substantive changes or to explain them. Regardless, they
   ... are extremely small changes that have no practical impacts

   glenn: That's my main point here. The reason for calling things
   out is if there is going to be a potential controversy about
   the change
   ... that will require further input from the community. I think
   we can agree that these changes will not
   ... produce any impact on the community.
   ... It's not productive to have a further delay based on these
   changes, I think we can agree.

   tmichel: I also believe this will not trigger a new CR, but it
   will show to the Director that we are not hiding anything.

   nigel: I'm checking this in detail. The resolution to #136
   clearly modifies conformance language so I think we have to
   keep it in.

   pal: Can we make a resolution that the group does not believe
   that these changes are practically substantive?

   glenn: That would be helpful in explaining to the Director.
   ... Here I think our intention originally was to capture the
   circumstances for documents that have content in them.
   ... That still applies. Another way to change the language is
   to modify the constraint to say it only applies when
   ... the document instance has content in it.

   PROPOSAL: Amend the resolution to state that the group does not
   believe that the changes for issues #136 and #146 have
   practical impact or are inconsistent with the previously
   published CR.

   pal: Even if they are considered substantive based on the
   Process there's no benefit in going to CR again.
   ... The group is not saying this is a huge change but it's
   going to be okay. The consensus is that it has no impact.

   tmichel: I support the view that even if the Process says these
   issues are substantive and we have to report them then we can
   explain that the group believes there is no practical impact.

   pal: It may be helpful if Glenn could post his view to the
   reflector so we can point to it.

   nigel: What I'd like to do is to make resolutions matching both
   of the above proposals, and take this to the Director.

   glenn: I second that.

   RESOLUTION: The group does not believe that the changes for
   issues #136 and #146 have practical impact or are inconsistent
   with the previously published CR.

   <inserted> --

   RESOLUTION: The group requests transition of IMSC 1 to Proposed

   nigel: Thank you Pierre for your work on this.

   tmichel: +1. And we'll be one of the first groups to use the
   new styling, just after CSSWG probably.


   nigel: There is an open Pull Request from BBC:

   ... I've not seen any comments on this so far.

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

   pal: Instead of a PR on behalf of MovieLabs I filed some issues
   on [17]https://github.com/w3c/charter-drafts/issues

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

   nigel: You may find that some of those are addressed by the
   BBC's PR.
   ... Can we consider which license to use - Document or

   pal: In my opinion for IMSC 1 and all work derived from TTML I
   strongly recommend using the Document license.

   glenn: I would concur.

   nigel: I'm happy with that.
   ... That leaves the remaining Rec track deliverables. It
   doesn't feel appropriate with the folk present here to impose a

   pal: Can we decide on a document by document basis?

   tmichel: It can be document by document.

   nigel: Okay so we need a view for WebVTT.
   ... Do we only need the license for Rec track docs or all docs?

   tmichel: I'll check and get back to you.

   nigel: Any other points on the charter?
   ... Pierre, I'll review the issues and check for alignment with
   the BBC PR.

   pal: So who would take the next pass at editing the charter,
   plh or tmichel?

   tmichel: I can do that.

   nigel: I can't merge PRs on this repo - only staff can edit the
   document I believe.

   pal: We need to know when the PR has been merged and when we
   should review etc.

   tmichel: I can do that I think.
   ... You want me to make a new PR or to merge the current PR?

   nigel: I'll tell tmichel when I've added notes to the BBC PR
   describing which issues it closes.

   tmichel: Ok


   nigel: Can I just clarify that there's no semantic to allow the
   background box height of inline areas to be set to the line

   glenn: There's a preliminary question about what the correct
   default behaviour is as implied by the current spec
   ... language. I have not been able to determine that yet.

   nigel: We did do some investigation with XSL-FO and CSS and
   decided that the box height is not the line height.

   glenn: I did some playing around with Chrome and Firefox and
   what they are doing is the same but seems to be
   ... highly illogical. It may be that the code is not documented
   effectively. The first thing we need to do is to answer
   ... the question what is the current specification semantic,
   for example how does leading or multiple font sizes
   ... on a line impact it? If the answer is that the
   implementations don't follow any reasonable interpretation of
   ... we think is defined then we might have to define it better
   on our part as the default behaviour. If we want a
   ... variation from the default behaviour then we need to define
   it. I pointed out an issue I raised on Batik, the SVG
   ... renderer. I realised that I needed to define both
   background height and inline height separately.

   nigel: I'll post up on the issue any links I've found in
   researching this so far.

   glenn: Keep in mind that this is a different issue from the
   question of what lineHeight means.

   nigel: We're over time so I'll adjourn the meeting now - meet
   same time next week. Thanks very much everyone [adjourns

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

    1. [18]The group does not believe that the changes for issues
       #136 and #146 have practical impact or are inconsistent
       with the previously published CR.
    2. [19]The group requests transition of IMSC 1 to Proposed

   [End of minutes]

    Minutes formatted by David Booth's [20]scribe.perl version
    1.144 ([21]CVS log)
    $Date: 2016/02/25 16:11:17 $

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

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

Received on Thursday, 25 February 2016 16:15:57 UTC

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