Re: {minutes} TTWG Meeting 2016-01-28

On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 8:14 AM, Pierre-Anthony Lemieux <pal@sandflow.com>
wrote:

> Hi Dae,
>
> > initial
>
> How does Netflix plan to use <initial>?
>
> The current ED states "conditionalized element" is "To Be Defined".
>

btw, what does "conditionalized element" have to do with the initial
element?


>
> Best,
>
> -- Pierre
>
> On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 9:35 AM, Dae Kim <dakim@netflix.com> wrote:
> > Hello all,
> >
> > We're starting to engage with subtitle program vendors for TTML2 support
> and
> > I'm hoping the following features will be preserved as-is to Rec:
> >
> > initial
> >
> https://rawgit.com/w3c/ttml2/master/spec/ttml2.html?content-type=text/html;charset=utf-8#styling-vocabulary-initial
> >
> > tts:position
> >
> https://rawgit.com/w3c/ttml2/master/spec/ttml2.html?content-type=text/html;charset=utf-8#style-attribute-position
> >
> > tts:textEmphasis
> >
> https://rawgit.com/w3c/ttml2/master/spec/ttml2.html?content-type=text/html;charset=utf-8#style-attribute-textEmphasis
> >
> > tts:ruby
> >
> https://rawgit.com/w3c/ttml2/master/spec/ttml2.html?content-type=text/html;charset=utf-8#style-attribute-ruby
> >
> > tts:rubyAlign
> >
> https://rawgit.com/w3c/ttml2/master/spec/ttml2.html?content-type=text/html;charset=utf-8#style-attribute-rubyAlign
> >
> > tts:rubyPosition
> >
> https://rawgit.com/w3c/ttml2/master/spec/ttml2.html?content-type=text/html;charset=utf-8#style-attribute-rubyPosition
> >
> > tts:rubyReserve (specifically, "outside")
> >
> https://rawgit.com/w3c/ttml2/master/spec/ttml2.html?content-type=text/html;charset=utf-8#style-attribute-rubyReserve
> >
> > If everyone can kindly review, I'd like to collect everyone's opinions on
> > these.
> >
> >
> > Cheers, Dae
> >
> >
> >
> > Dae Kim | Video Engineer | Encoding Technology
> > 9420 94f4 a834 b038 2920 34b3 38ad b632 3738 942c 942f
> >
> > On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 8:34 AM, Nigel Megitt <nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk>
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> Thanks all for attending today's TTWG meeting. Minutes can be found in
> >> HTML format at https://www.w3.org/2016/01/28-tt-minutes.html
> >>
> >> In text format:
> >>
> >>    [1]W3C
> >>
> >>       [1] http://www.w3.org/
> >>
> >>                 Timed Text Working Group Teleconference
> >>
> >> 28 Jan 2016
> >>
> >>    See also: [2]IRC log
> >>
> >>       [2] http://www.w3.org/2016/01/28-tt-irc
> >>
> >> Attendees
> >>
> >>    Present
> >>           nigel, andreas, pierre, shinjan, glenn, tmichel, dae
> >>
> >>    Regrets
> >>           frans
> >>
> >>    Chair
> >>           nigel
> >>
> >>    Scribe
> >>           nigel
> >>
> >> Contents
> >>
> >>      * [3]Topics
> >>          1. [4]This Meeting
> >>          2. [5]Action Items
> >>          3. [6]IMSC issues
> >>          4. [7]Commit policy on github
> >>      * [8]Summary of Action Items
> >>      * [9]Summary of Resolutions
> >>      __________________________________________________________
> >>
> >>    <tmichel> I will be a few minutres late ...
> >>
> >>    <scribe> scribe: nigel
> >>
> >> This Meeting
> >>
> >>    nigel: [Goes through likely topics for meeting]: Actions, IMSC
> >>    1 issues, TTML2, possibly profiles
> >>    ... Any specific topics to cover, or AOB?
> >>
> >>    pal: IMSC 1 issues please
> >>
> >>    nigel: Yes
> >>
> >>    glenn: I'd like to discuss commit policy on github
> >>
> >>    nigel: Okay
> >>
> >> Action Items
> >>
> >>    action-453?
> >>
> >>    <trackbot> action-453 -- Thierry Michel to Schedule between
> >>    tmichel and philippe the transition to cr3 with any director
> >>    call as needed. -- due 2016-01-21 -- PENDINGREVIEW
> >>
> >>    <trackbot>
> >>    [10]http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/tracker/actions/453
> >>
> >>      [10] http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/tracker/actions/453
> >>
> >>    tmichel: IMSC 1 CR3 is published and has been announced to AC
> >>    and Chairs, and triggered a 2 month patent exclusion
> >>
> >>    close action-453
> >>
> >>    <trackbot> Closed action-453.
> >>
> >>    tmichel: I had to extend the CR exit point to Feb 28 because we
> >>    moved the publication back by 2 days.
> >>
> >>    nigel: Thanks
> >>
> >>    pal: I'll modify that on github too - Feb 28?
> >>
> >>    tmichel: Feb 28 yes
> >>
> >>    nigel: Thanks everyone whose helped with publication of that
> >>    CR.
> >>
> >>    action-454?
> >>
> >>    <trackbot> action-454 -- Philippe Le Hégaret to Create stub
> >>    files to redirect from hg to github for ttml1 and ttml2 -- due
> >>    2016-01-28 -- PENDINGREVIEW
> >>
> >>    <trackbot>
> >>    [11]http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/tracker/actions/454
> >>
> >>      [11] http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/tracker/actions/454
> >>
> >>    glenn: I noticed on the CR3 that a message was issued, a call
> >>    for exclusions message. Is a call for exclusions a
> >>    ... multiple event or a single event? Normally in the past
> >>    process a call for exclusions only occurred on the first CR
> >>    ... but not subsequent CRs. Has that changed?
> >>
> >>    tmichel: It's actually the com team who does that. I don't
> >>    remember - I need to check if we sent an exclusion for the
> >>    ... 2nd CR and will look into it and let you know. My
> >>    interpretation is every CR publication triggers an exclusion
> >>    ... period of 2 months, but I will investigate.
> >>    ... It makes sense because if you add functionality into the CR
> >>    version then it may result in a patent exclusion.
> >>
> >>    glenn: I agree.
> >>
> >>    action-454?
> >>
> >>    nigel: Okay I guess we'll close this one.
> >>
> >>    close action-454
> >>
> >>    <trackbot> Closed action-454.
> >>
> >>    action-455?
> >>
> >>    <trackbot> action-455 -- Glenn Adams to Update ttml2
> >>    spec/readme to include config for keyword replacement. -- due
> >>    2016-01-28 -- OPEN
> >>
> >>    <trackbot>
> >>    [12]http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/tracker/actions/455
> >>
> >>      [12] http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/tracker/actions/455
> >>
> >>    action-445?
> >>
> >>    <trackbot> action-445 -- Andreas Tai to Propose to mdolan this
> >>    addition to the profile registry document. -- due 2015-11-06 --
> >>    OPEN
> >>
> >>    <trackbot>
> >>    [13]http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/tracker/actions/445
> >>
> >>      [13] http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/tracker/actions/445
> >>
> >>    atai: I checked with Mike and will make a proposal for a new
> >>    column for the profile registry table that shows where
> >>    ... the profile information can be found inside the TTML
> >>    document instance for the corresponding TTML profile
> >>    specification.
> >>    ... Some are for ttp:profile attribute, or element, or
> >>    ebuttm:documentConformsToStandard element.
> >>
> >>    mike: Andreas and I exchanged a couple of emails and it makes
> >>    sense to me.
> >>    ... I'm hopelessly behind on the profile document!
> >>
> >>    nigel: What can I do to help?
> >>
> >>    mike: The wiki is what I think we want to produce, in the text.
> >>    It's more about putting it into a document template
> >>    ... and using the tools to publish it in W3C.
> >>
> >>    nigel: Thierry, would you be able to assist?
> >>
> >>    tmichel: Yes, I'd be happy to help turn the wiki text into a
> >>    first version on github
> >>
> >>    action-429?
> >>
> >>    <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
> >>
> >>    <trackbot>
> >>    [14]http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/tracker/actions/429
> >>
> >>      [14] http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/tracker/actions/429
> >>
> >>    action-429: [TTWG meeting 2016-01-28] tmichel to help this
> >>    along with a first draft on github
> >>
> >>    <trackbot> Notes added to action-429 Draft a wg note for the
> >>    profile short name registry and ttml media type registration.
> >>
> >>    close action-445
> >>
> >>    <trackbot> Closed action-445.
> >>
> >> IMSC issues
> >>
> >>    pal: I'd like to start with issue #127
> >>
> >>    [15]https://github.com/w3c/imsc/issues/127
> >>
> >>      [15] https://github.com/w3c/imsc/issues/127
> >>
> >>    nigel: Extensibility goals not documented
> >>
> >>    pal: The discussion is whether or how IMSC 1 can have an
> >>    opinion on IMSC 2 and how an IMSC 1 document will be
> >>    ... processed by an IMSC 2 processor and vice versa. Before we
> >>    have started on IMSC 2 it is very difficult to have a
> >>    ... good opinion. I think we should have that discussion when
> >>    we start on IMSC 2.
> >>
> >>    glenn: The issue here is whether we address this in IMSC 1 or
> >>    wait. I'm insisting on addressing it in IMSC 1 and not
> >>    ... waiting. I agree that it needs a bit of thinking. We don't
> >>    have to refer to IMSC 2, we can simply refer to future
> >>    ... versions. At least TTML2 talks about future and past
> >>    versions.
> >>    ... In retrospect we should have given more thought to
> >>    extensibility and at least documented our goals. I'm asking
> >>    ... for informative material that describes our goals. It would
> >>    be a sad state of affairs if we cannot document our goals now.
> >>
> >>    pal: I don't think this is as dire as you just painted it. IMSC
> >>    1 already allows foreign vocabulary, which allows for
> >>    ... straightforward extensibility.
> >>
> >>    glenn: It may be sufficient to describe those goals, for
> >>    example the goal of supporting vocabulary not in IMSC 1.
> >>
> >>    pal: That's §6.2
> >>
> >>    glenn: I'm asking for a specifically labelled section on goals,
> >>    in an annex, the introduction or somewhere else.
> >>
> >>    pal: Okay. I don't really know how to write that section. I'd
> >>    like to consider a concrete proposal.
> >>
> >>    glenn: I hope people already have goals in mind and could
> >>    articulate them.
> >>    ... Foreign vocabulary is one goal. The same comments are going
> >>    to apply with #126 on interoperability.
> >>
> >>    nigel: [opens up to group to offer options for extensibility]
> >>
> >>    glenn: Both forward and backward compatibility come into this
> >>    category. I would hope that a goal is to be as
> >>    ... forward and backward compatible as possible, as a generic
> >>    goal that applies to most of W3C development.
> >>    ... That doesn't mean it's not possible to create a breaking
> >>    change in the future. If we think that such a breaking change
> >>    ... could occur then we could document it as a discussion
> >>    point.
> >>
> >>    nigel: One of the points I think is probably implied is that
> >>    the purpose of the profile exercise is that extensions from
> >>    within TTML are excluded unless listed.
> >>
> >>    glenn: Since we don't list all the features there's an
> >>    implication that unlisted features from TTML 1 are permissible
> >>    in IMSC 1, yes?
> >>
> >>    pal: We put a significant effort in to list all TTML 1 profile
> >>    features.
> >>
> >>    glenn: Okay, so all features from TTML Annex D are listed as
> >>    prohibited or permitted, yes?
> >>
> >>    pal: Yes, that was the goal, and I think we achieved it.
> >>
> >>    glenn: We could argue about if that's extensibility or
> >>    interoperability, but it is possibly both, so we could discuss
> >>    that under extensibility goals.
> >>    ... I suggest we open this up for comments over the next couple
> >>    of weeks and that I will draft a proposal based on that.
> >>
> >>    nigel: Those comments should be on the github issue
> >>
> >>    pal: What are we asking people to do?
> >>
> >>    glenn: Give us opinions on what are and are not extensibility
> >>    goals.
> >>    ... I haven't written down my own thoughts on this yet. I'm
> >>    more struck by the absence of this topic than anything else.
> >>    That was my point in filing the issue.
> >>    ... I'm prepared to draft something but can't articulate my own
> >>    thinking on this right now.
> >>
> >>    nigel: I think we should be careful to understand if we need
> >>    this or if we can build on something already in TTML1
> >>    ... by inheritance?
> >>
> >>    glenn: I don't think we have extensibility goals described in
> >>    TTML1
> >>    ... which in retrospect we should have put in.
> >>    ... In TTML1 we used a QA guideline checklist. One of the
> >>    points there was a set of good practices. Number 18
> >>    ... states that if extensibility is allowed define an extension
> >>    mechanism.
> >>    ... I suggest we review what's in IMSC 1 and TTML 1 and go from
> >>    there.
> >>
> >>    nigel: Okay so action on everyone to complete this research and
> >>    record their goals in the issue.
> >>
> >>    glenn: Very much the same comments apply to the
> >>    interoperability issue.
> >>
> >>    pal: What's the time box that we have on this?
> >>
> >>    glenn: I can respond by mid-Feb with some material.
> >>
> >>    nigel: Okay, that sounds like 2 weeks to note extensibility and
> >>    interoperability goals in the github issues.
> >>
> >>    pal: How are we doing on #111 and #114?
> >>
> >>    glenn: I've got to draft some material based on a conversation
> >>    I had with Nigel, where we think we may be able to resolve both
> >>    of those.
> >>    ... Mid-Feb is reasonable for those too.
> >>
> >>    pal: #125 [16]https://github.com/w3c/imsc/issues/125 Unable to
> >>    normatively determine non-conformance when testing content
> >>    constraints.
> >>
> >>      [16] https://github.com/w3c/imsc/issues/125
> >>
> >>    glenn: At present IMSC 1 specifies that if a document is not
> >>    conformant then behaviour is undefined. Correct?
> >>
> >>    pal: Correct. The document does not specify a normative
> >>    behaviour in the presence of a non-conformant document.
> >>
> >>    glenn: A couple of points: 1. Since all behaviour re
> >>    non-conformance is unspecified then it is impossible to
> >>    normatively
> >>    ... test non-conformance because any outcome is possible, from
> >>    aborting to ignoring and anything in between.
> >>    ... I'm not happy with that state of affairs. Part 2, which I
> >>    did make a proposal for, is to introduce the concept of a
> >>    ... validating processor and to allow for some normative
> >>    behaviour in the face of non-conformance if and when the
> >>    ... IMSC processor is also a validating processor. So an IMSC
> >>    transformation or validation processor that also supports
> >>    ... validation and it is enabled then it is possible to define
> >>    some constraints on non-conformance.
> >>
> >>    atai: I thought the conclusion here from previous meetings when
> >>    we discussed this is that handling of non-conformant
> >>    ... files is out of spec and I agree with that. What Glenn
> >>    wants to define is behaviour on encountering non-conformant
> >>    documents.
> >>    ... I think that's out of scope of the spec. The topic came up
> >>    before and from what I read of the minutes the conclusion
> >>    ... was out of scope.
> >>
> >>    pal: That's my recollection, but it sounds like Glenn is
> >>    proposing something a little narrower, only for validating
> >>    processors.
> >>    ... So for those who choose to describe processors as
> >>    validating then this is the behaviour.
> >>
> >>    glenn: That's right. I don't disagree with Andreas but I think
> >>    we can do better than that at little or no cost to the
> >>    specification.
> >>    ... For example the TTT toolset has a presentation engine in
> >>    it. It performs validation processing as a precursor to
> >>    ... presentation. It's an existing implementation (also of a
> >>    transformation processor) that does implement the optional
> >>    ... features of validation. So we can go further than saying
> >>    it's completely out of scope and having normative
> >>    ... language that allows us to introduce defined behaviour.
> >>
> >>    pal: The particular thing here is that it's a class of
> >>    processors described as validating processors.
> >>
> >>    glenn: Yes, TTML2 introduces these all formally along with some
> >>    specific vocabulary for controlling it. I didn't want
> >>    ... to inject that into this proposal because that would be
> >>    going too far, but I took the semantics of what we're
> >>    ... proposing and put them into a form that we could adopt in
> >>    IMSC 1.
> >>
> >>    atai: Thank you for the clarification. It is of course a
> >>    different use case. I would like to see the concrete proposal.
> >>    ... There are of course existing possibilities to check
> >>    conformance, for example using an XML schema. This already
> >>    ... has a defined behaviour for how to identify
> >>    non-conformance. I'm not sure if we should also define
> >>    behaviour for
> >>    ... QC processes of TTML.
> >>
> >>    glenn: Take a look at #125 because there is a proposed set of
> >>    language there.
> >>
> >> Commit policy on github
> >>
> >>    glenn: There are two kinds of policies that are commonly used
> >>    in development - Review Then Commit, when a
> >>    ... consensus approval is obtained prior to a commit. Then
> >>    there's Commit Then Review, which allows a
> >>    ... retroactive veto. In the history of this group all of the
> >>    work on TTML1 and TTML2 in Mercurial and CVS was done
> >>    ... on a Commit Then Review (CTR) lazy consensus process. It
> >>    was based on the editor to decide when to commit
> >>    ... and then notify the group and make sure that they had log
> >>    info to give them a chance to review post facto and
> >>    ... object if necessary. Most teams follow a CTR process
> >>    because it provides the least barriers to making changes.
> >>    ... It can result in more bugs potentially. My experience is
> >>    I've worked with both kinds of processes. With github
> >>    ... which has a Pull Request mechanism it is possible to
> >>    snapshot the changes and call them out for review. We
> >>    ... discussed and agreed the move to github in Sapporo and
> >>    talked about the review process but I don't recall doing
> >>    ... so in depth. At the time I remember thinking it should be
> >>    up to the Editor to decide how to use that facility. I never
> >>    ... anticipated changing from CTR to RTC. Recently both Nigel
> >>    and Pierre have in the context of IMSC 1 been following
> >>    ... a RTC process in their thinking. I would object to that for
> >>    TTML2. I might be willing to agree to it for other work.
> >>    ... I find it a strong barrier to process. For example right
> >>    now I have 4 different issues that Pierre has delegated to me
> >>    ... to create PRs. All of those fixes are going to change the
> >>    same lines of code.
> >>
> >>    pal: I think there's a misunderstanding - you can create a PR
> >>    that covers multiple issues, and we've done that in the
> >>    ... past.
> >>
> >>    glenn: I agree that's possible.
> >>
> >>    nigel: github also provides a tool for merging work in other
> >>    branches to resolve the clashes.
> >>
> >>    glenn: I agree there are tools there but it's much more awkward
> >>    and difficult to do that. My basic point is that
> >>    ... we don't have a firm consensus on CTR or RTC as a policy.
> >>    Secondly even if we are using RTC on e.g. IMSC 1 I don't
> >>    ... think it should be a blanket policy but up to the Editor to
> >>    decide what policy to use. For trivial changes there's
> >>    ... no reason to follow the more time consuming process.
> >>
> >>    atai: I think we should check again what we discussed at TPAC.
> >>    I think we explicitly had some discussion about the
> >>    ... new policy with github and I thought we agreed but I'm not
> >>    sure.
> >>
> >>    nigel: We did discuss this in Sapporo and I'm pretty sure we
> >>    did agree that. For WDs we always followed a RTC process
> >>    ... and said that to reduce the time between ED updates and WD
> >>    publications and to use the automated WD publication
> >>    ... tool we would use PRs.
> >>
> >>    glenn: I do recall saying that I wouldn't be happy to adopt
> >>    this for TTML2.
> >>
> >>    nigel: I'm happy to review the notes on this and return to it
> >>    as a topic. In the meantime I would also like plh's views
> >>    ... and I would myself strongly recommend that we use pull
> >>    requests for everything including TTML2.
> >>
> >>    glenn: I don't mind using pull requests but I object to a 2
> >>    week period before a merge is permitted.
> >>    ... I think it should be up to the Editor or possibly the Chair
> >>    to decide to merge if a change is non controversial and
> >>    ... not to impose a 2 week delay on all PRs.
> >>
> >>    nigel: That's coincident with what we said in Sapporo. There
> >>    may be a middle ground there that is actually acceptable.
> >>
> >>    glenn and pal: [discussion without conclusion on who should be
> >>    allowed to merge pull requests]
> >>
> >>    nigel: We're out of time now so I'll adjourn. An hour again,
> >>    same time next week. Thanks everyone [adjourns meeting]
> >>
> >> Summary of Action Items
> >>
> >> Summary of Resolutions
> >>
> >>    [End of minutes]
> >>      __________________________________________________________
> >>
> >>
> >>     Minutes formatted by David Booth's [17]scribe.perl version
> >>     1.144 ([18]CVS log)
> >>     $Date: 2016/01/28 16:33:11 $
> >>
> >>      [17] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
> >>      [18] 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.
> >>
> >> ---------------------
> >
> >
>
>