- From: Nigel Megitt <nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk>
- Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2016 16:15:28 +0000
- To: W3C Public TTWG <public-tt@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <D2FE11AD.36B33%nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk>
Thanks all for attending today's TTWG meeting. Minutes can be found in HTML format at: https://www.w3.org/2016/03/03-tt-minutes.html
In Text format:
[1]W3C
[1] http://www.w3.org/
Timed Text Working Group Teleconference
03 Mar 2016
See also: [2]IRC log
[2] http://www.w3.org/2016/03/03-tt-irc
Attendees
Present
Nigel, Glenn, Thierry, Pierre, Andreas
Regrets
Frans
Chair
nigel
Scribe
nigel
Contents
* [3]Topics
1. [4]This Meeting
2. [5]Action Items
3. [6]Charter
4. [7]IMSC
5. [8]TTML
6. [9]TTML and WebVTT mapping document.
* [10]Summary of Action Items
* [11]Summary of Resolutions
__________________________________________________________
<scribe> scribe: nigel
This Meeting
nigel: For today we have a minor section on IMSC, TTML2, and
Charter, and Thierry has also requested that we discuss TTML
and WebVTT mapping, WebVTT comments
... AOB?
group: no AOB.
Action Items
group: no updates on any actions this week.
Charter
tmichel: From my understanding last week we have 1 open PR from
BBC, and a fair amount of issues that were
... raised. I thought Nigel wanted to look at those issues and
state which are already incorporated in that PR.
nigel: That's right, but I haven't done it [slaps own wrist]
tmichel: I'm happy to merge the PR, but please let me know
which issues are already covered.
... I think plh is expecting that document ASAP to submit to
W3M. I think he's like to directly submit the charter
... instead of requesting an extension and going through it
again, if that's doable. From the amount of issues we
... have I think we can reach that goal.
atai: I have a question regarding the procedure.
... I think first it will be presented to W3M and then reviewed
by the members, where topics can be raised?
tmichel: Yes.
... But if you already have issues - e.g. the HTML and
coordination with HTML, then it's better to do that as soon as
possible.
... The sooner the better.
atai: Yes, of course! I agree.
tmichel: If you could provide any further input before our next
Telecon next week that would be excellent, so we can discuss it
here first.
nigel: I've now looked through the issues and have added three
issues to the BBC Pull Request where they are at
... least partially addressed, but I'd encourage especially
Pierre to review since it may not exactly match what he's asked
for.
... On the document license, did we agree?
tmichel: We can state it on a document by document basis as
discussed by email. I want to remove the wording
... because I've not seen it in other Charters so I'm not sure
it's really needed. I'll let you know if it's needed by
... next Monday. If it is then we'll tweak the language to
allow either licence to be chosen on a document by document
basis.
nigel: Does anyone want to raise any specific issues for
discussion?
tmichel: On the timeline link, we should make sure there's
something there on the wiki,
nigel: I've already done that!
... (based on the link in the BBC pull request)
... [goes through issues rapidly]
... I'd like a staff view on #25:
[12]https://github.com/w3c/charter-drafts/issues/25
... likewise for #22:
[13]https://github.com/w3c/charter-drafts/issues/22
... What about issue #17, tmichel?
[12] https://github.com/w3c/charter-drafts/issues/25
[13] https://github.com/w3c/charter-drafts/issues/22
tmichel: [14]https://github.com/w3c/charter-drafts/issues/17 I
raised this because I thought it was a bit ambiguous.
[14] https://github.com/w3c/charter-drafts/issues/17
nigel: How will you resolve this - is it a staff view?
tmichel: Either I remove Wide review on first publication and
replace with what's in the process, or remove the whole bit.
... I'll discuss with plh on Monday. It's more something
internal to discuss.
... I also wanted to add ARIB to external groups.
nigel: Then you should +1 Pierre's issue #26
[15]https://github.com/w3c/charter-drafts/issues/26
... I see that issue #16 has a number of things in.
[15] https://github.com/w3c/charter-drafts/issues/26
tmichel: I see that's redundant. What's Apex?
pal: It's an organisation that sets standards for airlines who
has in the past expressed an interest in IMSC 1 and TTML so I
thought we should keep them up to date.
nigel: What will we do differently during the charter period
between external groups that are listed vs those that are not?
tmichel: It's not a big difference but there's more pressure to
seek wide review from listed groups.
pal: We discussed this for IMSC 1 - if a group is listed but
does not respond then that does not stop us from proceeding.
tmichel: That's true.
glenn: I'd rather not list it unless we've got information that
we're likely to get feedback from it.
tmichel: Would you disagree for both ARIB and APEX, or just
APEX?
glenn: ARIB is a national standards body so a completely
different sort of thing. We have a long tradition working
... with ARIB so I'm just commenting on APEX not ARIB here.
tmichel: I agree with you there.
glenn: FYI at the meeting from Sapporo there was an ARIB
participant. If someone shows up from APEX in the
... future then sure, but I think it's premature now.
tmichel: Ok so what we could do is add them somewhere like in
our implementation list.
pal: Don't get me wrong, it was only a suggestion. Please don't
include them if you'd rather not.
... We should put in the charter how we expect to interact with
those external organisations. It would be good to
... reaffirm that responses from those organisations are not
mandatory for us to proceed.
nigel: I've added a note to
... say "Group agreed to add in ARIB but not to add in APEX to
the TTWG Charter."
IMSC
nigel: Just to note that Pierre, Philippe, Thierry and I met
the Director on Tuesday and he approved transition to PR which
we expect to be published next week.
... So that's a great step!
... We did agree to add a dated note to the implementation
report at some stage saying that we're no longer working on it,
and point to a new page listing current known implementations.
tmichel: I'm happy to take a snapshot of the current IR
document, and list in a new page the tests and implementations
we know of, in a wiki page.
nigel: +1 to the wiki page idea.
tmichel: I'll look at doing that in a couple of weeks or so.
... We did discuss a press release and agreed not to have a
formal press release for example with companies giving
testimonials (which we don't usually do) but to have some kind
of blog entry
... about the Rec release. We can talk about that later.
pal: I had a different recollection - we were going to let the
W3C comms team make a determination especially in
... the light of the recent Emmy. I'm happy to compose an email
to the comms team, but I would allow them to make
... the decision.
tmichel: I doubt that they will have a big press release but
they could add some information about the Emmy on the home
page.
... I understood that there will also be a blog.
pal: I think you or I or Nigel should inform the Comm team.
It's an opportunity to build momentum and I would not
... like us to miss that.
tmichel: I'm fine with that - can you start drafting something
and we can discuss it in the group and then check
... with the comm team if they're happy to issue it? We have to
start early, because things are going to go
... quickly now - in a month or so we should exit the PR review
and then move to Rec.
pal: I'll compose that email and send to tmichel and nigel for
review.
tmichel: Great.
nigel: Thanks
TTML
nigel: Just to note we have a new issue on TTML1, and a couple
on TTML2 if you want to check the github repo.
... Also tmichel asked about a new publication.
glenn: I think we should get a new WD out - how about targeting
e.g. March 15?
tmichel: Excellent, thank you Glenn.
nigel: +1
glenn: I'll spend some time on some edits. I have some minor
items to report.
... In recent implementation work on TTV etc I've now
implemented the full condition expression language and
... have it operating, except not the media query part yet. We
have syntax parsing and a function evaluation.
... In particular in TTPE we have it working for the forced use
case, and it's publicly available if people want
... to review the code and understand it.
<glenn> [1]
[16]https://github.com/skynav/ttt/blob/master/ttt-ttv/src/main/
java/com/skynav/ttv/util/Condition.java [2]
[17]https://github.com/skynav/ttt/blob/master/ttt-ttv/src/test/
java/com/skynav/ttv/util/ConditionTestCases.java
[1] http://www.w3.org/
[16] https://github.com/skynav/ttt/blob/master/ttt-ttv/src/main/java/com/skynav/ttv/util/Condition.java
[2] http://www.w3.org/2016/03/03-tt-irc
[17] https://github.com/skynav/ttt/blob/master/ttt-ttv/src/test/java/com/skynav/ttv/util/ConditionTestCases.java
glenn: Just to comment on the new issue about exposing external
parameters, that's an interesting idea. I think
... we need to look at that and for example what CSS might be
doing to support external parameter access. There
... may be security issues involved in doing that, to allow
content from the local environment to be injected into
... the presentation content.
nigel: Ooh yes.
glenn: I could also see that you could use a condition that
checks to see if a particular feature is supported. I want
... to see use cases for this. The question I would raise is
that if you're processing it locally then why don't you
... use a preprocessor that uses macro substitution to replace
values. Obviously that makes it less portable.
nigel: We could define the macros.
glenn: Most preprocessing like that uses server side
replacement, but if it's genuinely client side only then that
... might be an issue. For example we have a user language
parameter in condition that allows you to conditionalise
... content and style based on the local user language. That's
a way to allow parameters to be used without
... exposing them.
nigel: Yes, however many accessibility requirements specify
client side customisation of e.g. font family, size, color etc.
... and there's no way described right now to achieve that.
glenn: Traditionally solutions have included e.g. a CSS
stylesheet that overrides local settings, or a presentation
processor override.
nigel: That's the sort of thing we need to discuss.
pal: It's not straightforward but I'd like to participate in
that discussion.
atai: I see Nigel's point.
group: Agreed to set aside some time to go deeper into this
complex topic later.
TTML and WebVTT mapping document.
nigel: tmichel asked about when we publish a FPWD, but it's a
Note isn't it, so not subject to a FPWD?
tmichel: There are two ways: we could issue a WD and then later
a Note that we revise any time, or just go straight
... to Note, but at some point I'd like to publish it.
nigel: Andreas, what do we need to do in your view before
publishing it?
atai: It's already publicly available. There hasn't been much
feedback. The major problem with the mapping document
... is as we discussed before, that WebVTT is still changing.
So I think first we need more feedback, with tests of
... existing implementations, and then conclude if we should
publish it as a Note. I don't see it at the moment.
... I'm not sure also when the best point will be because that
also largely depends on the WebVTT spec.
... At the moment it is really problematic to say which
features we can depend on in WebVTT
tmichel: If you want to give it more visibility don't you think
publishing in /TR would give it more visibility?
... The first publication of a Note does not have to be final.
I understand that there's a big dependency with WebVTT
... but does that mean we will not have a first Note before
WebVTT is in CR?
atai: Yes, let's see when this happens or when we can say that
it's stable. As I said I think there's also the topic of
... testing, as well as feedback and the evolution of WebVTT.
If the third takes too long then of course we can
... go for feedback outside the group. At the moment I don't
see it right now. Maybe in Q2 this year.
... Also, if we pubish it on the /TR page there's a
disadvantage as well as an advantage that it seems for people
... not reading the document that there is an easy translation
but I don't think that's really the case at the moment
... so I would be very careful about early publication.
nigel: I think there are issues open as well which we haven't
been able to resolve.
... We're out of time so I'll adjourn. Meet same time next
week. Please do look at the Charter before then. Thanks all.
[adjourns meeting]
Summary of Action Items
Summary of Resolutions
[End of minutes]
__________________________________________________________
Minutes formatted by David Booth's [18]scribe.perl version
1.144 ([19]CVS log)
$Date: 2016/03/03 16:14:55 $
[18] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
[19] 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.
---------------------
Received on Thursday, 3 March 2016 16:15:54 UTC