- From: Nigel Megitt <nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk>
- Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2017 16:10:23 +0000
- To: Timed Text Working Group <public-tt@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <D5A908E8.461C5%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/2017/08/03-tt-minutes.html
Minutes in text format:
[1]W3C
[1] http://www.w3.org/
Timed Text Working Group Teleconference
03 Aug 2017
See also: [2]IRC log
[2] http://www.w3.org/2017/08/03-tt-irc
Attendees
Present
Nigel, Pierre, Mike, Thierry
Regrets
Andreas, Glenn
Chair
Nigel
Scribe
nigel
Contents
* [3]Topics
1. [4]This meeting
2. [5]CSS styling equivalents of TTML2 and IMSC features
3. [6]IMSC
4. [7]IMSC Tests
5. [8]WebVTT review feedback
6. [9]TTML2
7. [10]Future meetings
* [11]Summary of Action Items
* [12]Summary of Resolutions
__________________________________________________________
<scribe> scribe: nigel
This meeting
Nigel: Looks like we're low on numbers for today, let's see
what we can do...
... I don't think we can do much on TPAC, there's a bit on CSS
features, there's an IMSC
... issue on origin and extent, and some imsc-tests changes.
Pierre: I'd like to talk about where to host IMSC2 requirements
- either on the imsc repo
... wiki or in a different repo. I don't know the lead time to
creating a repo...
Nigel: When plh does it, it's very quick, but let's think about
if we need a new repo.
... Let's cover it in the IMSC section. For TTML I need to
report back on the privacy meeting
... from last week.
... On WebVTT I think David considers that we've had long
enough to review the CG's
... proposed disposition of comments, so let's check that's
true.
... Any other topics to discuss?
group: No other topics.
CSS styling equivalents of TTML2 and IMSC features
Nigel: There's been one change to the wiki page since last
week, because someone from
... CSS WG pointed out that textOutline maps somewhat to
stroke-width in CSS.
[13]CSS Requirements - textOutline
[13] https://www.w3.org/wiki/TTML/CSSRequirements#textOutline
Nigel: I changed it from no mapping to partial mapping. This is
one where the CSS spec
... is in WD and maybe FPWD but the browsers all support it
according to caniuse.
Pierre: I didn't find that when I did imsc.js, but great news.
Nigel: I haven't experimented with seeing if text-shadow can be
used alongside stroke-width
... to generate a similar effect.
[14]CSS stroke-width property.
[14] https://www.w3.org/TR/fill-stroke-3/#stroke-width
Pierre: [let's try it...]
... It looks like stroke-width is supported by Chrome but not
stroke-color.
Nigel: caniuse says they are both supported with a -webkit-
prefix.
Pierre: That works, with the prefix on both.
<pal> [15]https://codepen.io/palemieux/pen/ZJpwxJ
[15] https://codepen.io/palemieux/pen/ZJpwxJ
Pierre: But it looks like the stroke is internal rather than
external.
... It looks like the stroke is centered on the glyph outline
rather than going outward,
... so for use in subtitles it is not useful.
Nigel: The comment was at
[16]https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2017Jul/0030
.html
[16] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2017Jul/0030.html
Pierre: I'll reply to that thread.
Nigel: Thanks. The next point on this topic is that I'll be
dialling in to the CSS WG tomorrow
... 0930 Paris time for their discussion of the styling
requirements we have here, and TTML2
... more widely.
... My goal will be to raise the requirements that we have
identified and hopefully get
... some agreement to work on them so that we can follow up at
TPAC. I'll also invite them
... to attend our meeting at TPAC also.
IMSC
Pierre: I'm interested in understanding the best place to
gather IMSC2 requirements. One
... option is the IMSC repo wiki. It's not ideal for change
tracking, but maybe we won't need
... that very much. It's super simple. Another alternative is
to create a repo called e.g.
... imsc-vnext-req and do it there.
Nigel: I slightly prefer a separate repo and document because
that allows us to reference
... it in the transition questions later, instead of saying "no
requirements, just based on a
... member submission" we can say "see WG Note ..." which is
helpful.
Pierre: Especially if we are going to publish as a WG Note then
doing it in a new repo is
... a no-brainer so we should just create a new repo for that.
<scribe> ACTION: tmichel Create a new repo imsc-vnext-reqs
[recorded in
[17]http://www.w3.org/2017/08/03-tt-minutes.html#action01]
[17] http://www.w3.org/2017/08/03-tt-minutes.html#action01
<trackbot> Created ACTION-500 - Create a new repo
imsc-vnext-reqs [on Thierry Michel - due 2017-08-10].
github: [18]https://github.com/w3c/imsc/issues/249
[18] https://github.com/w3c/imsc/issues/249
Nigel: [summarises most recent posts on the issue]
... Is this just something that followed through from TTML1
without anyone noticing?
Pierre: Exactly, I think it's that simple that nobody noticed
it so the ability came through
... without anyone constraining it. The "either" shouldn't be
interpreted as a constraint.
... The most we could do is add a Note saying not to do it, but
actually supporting mixed
... units is not a problem in implementations regardless of how
strange it would be to use them.
Nigel: I think the answer is that mixing units is allowed.
... I don't even think we need a note on it.
Pierre: We could remove the "either" to remove the hint to the
contrary.
Nigel: +1
Pierre: I can propose it.
RESOLUTION: Mixed units are permitted, Pierre to propose a
removal of the possibly misleading "either".
github-bot: end topic
IMSC Tests
Pierre: Not much to discuss, should we arbitrarily say that the
tests are complete at some
... time, to put a line in the sand? I feel that we're probably
there so we could just declare
... version 1.0 open, and the next big milestone is to say when
IMSC 1.0.1 is published,
... have a v1.0.1 or whatever.
Nigel: Don't we need to add the 1.0.1 tests in?
Pierre: My plan was to wait until CR at the earliest, based on
implementations.
Nigel: Right, because the imsc-tests suite is for Recs and the
CR implementation report
... is based on tests that are somewhere else?
Pierre: Exactly, that's how it is in my mind.
Nigel: Makes sense to me.
... I suppose one option would be to create a branch with a
mirror of the CR tests so its
... ready to pull request in when the spec moves on.
... It doesn't matter when you do that, and it could
potentially cause confusion doing it too soon.
Pierre: Exactly.
... Should we declare this as v1? What do other groups do?
Thierry: I don't know the answer.
Nigel: What does this mean? Add a release tag, put it on the
implementations wiki page and maybe the TTWG homepage?
Pierre: Exactly, and send a message to the public reflector.
Nigel: Is there a test harness or framework that can put the
input documents in and
... compare the outputs?
Pierre: On imsc.js there's a PNG comparison script, which I'd
happily contribute.
<pal>
[19]https://github.com/sandflow/imscJS/blob/master/script/refpn
gcompare.py
[19] https://github.com/sandflow/imscJS/blob/master/script/refpngcompare.py
Nigel: For me the key thing is that the tests are there -
having a test runner would be
... great but could be a v2 thing perhaps.
Pierre: Exactly, the key thing is the tests are stable.
... The PNGs are generated by imsc.js plus I've checked
manually that the output is
... correct.
... I found many bugs in the TTML1 tests that were adapted.
It's possible there are still
... bugs, but I've seen a definite slow-down in bug reports for
IMSC.js and IMSC1 so
... declaring 1.0 is not crazy.
Nigel: Works for me!
... I guess we should feed some of the fixes back into the
TTML1 suite too.
Pierre: Yes, unfortunately I haven't kept track of them.
[20]Declare a v1 release
[20] https://github.com/w3c/imsc-tests/issues/36
WebVTT review feedback
Thierry: About a month ago David came to one of these calls
requesting that the TTWG
... review the latest WebVTT draft and he gave a 2 month period
in order to do so. So it's
... now about a month in, and David said he didn't receive any
comments, so the CG would
... like to move forward and publish a new wide review draft -
we had one already back in
... 2014 but since then there were a lot of new features added
to the spec, therefore we
... are going to trigger a second wide review and horizontal
review. David considered that
... the comments that were sent during the first review are
considered ok.
Nigel: Are we reviewing the draft or the disposition of
comments?
Thierry: The disposition of comments and the edits that they
triggered to make the
... recent draft. Now there is going to be another review for
the new features that have
... not had a chance for wide review except by the CG.
Nigel: Did you say he gave 2 months and now he wants to cut it
to 1 month?
Thierry: No he said a month. The TTWG has not really reviewed
the answers to the
... commenters' comments, which is what we required.
Nigel: Right so there was a draft disposition of comments and a
request for approval by
... the WG and so far there has been silence?
Thierry: Yes, there is no real disposition of comments, it's
more issues raised in the
... tracker and in github but there's no real disposition of
comments as done for our specs
... for example.
Nigel: I thought you made a wiki page?
Thierry: Yes but it's not finished in my view.
Pierre: Can't we just use the same process? Isn't it a W3C
process?
Thierry: The Process doesn't describe exactly what the
disposition of comments should look like.
Pierre: What does the Process say?
Thierry: That you have to go through a wide review and that you
have to demonstrate to
... the Director that the comments have all been responded to
and if the commenter is
... satisfied.
Pierre: I think we should use the same process we have used
before.
Thierry: I would agree.
... For example we can not track if the commenter is satisfied
or not at the moment.
... If the co-chair believes that what we have now is good
enough, even though it is different
... from the process we have successfully followed for years
including for IMSC and TTML
... then why not try it? There's nothing that says what the
disposition of comments looks like.
Nigel: But we can decide?
Thierry: I would like to decide with David present.
Nigel: It sounds like the response we need to give to David is
as follows:
... * We need a clearly set out list of comments and
resolutions, with the response from the commenter for each.
Thierry: I think that's a good way forward.
Pierre: My point is just that we should not reinvent the
process each time.
Nigel: Thierry please could you go back to David and explain
that it's hard for the WG to
... review the comments without a clearly set out list?
Thierry: Yes. Also we have time to do this if there's another
WD to incorporate all the
... comments previously received and for the new WD, and we
should have time to review
... those during TPAC. However David wants to go to CR before
TPAC.
Nigel: Is there a proposed end date for the WD review period?
Thierry: David wanted the review to end in August and I said
it's unlikely that we can do that
... because first we need another WD mentioning that its a wide
review with the end date,
... so we have to publish that new document, then I have to
send emails to groups
... requesting review, then we should have at least 4 weeks of
review because its summer.
... For IMSC 1.0.1 we had a month and a half, for TTML2 we had
2 months, so for this one
... we should have at least 4 weeks, which is the
recommendation (not a must) in the W3C
... Process.
Nigel: So even if they published today it would be the
beginning of September at the
... earliest before the review end period.
Thierry: Yes, however David is away at the moment. It could be
that the Editors can
... publish with the automatic tool or I could do it but I need
to have a review end date at
... least. Either we choose it today or we propose something to
David or we wait for David
... to return.
Nigel: I would propose at least 6 weeks given that its summer,
but it would make sense
... to have David's view.
Thierry: Can we agree on it? For me its the minimum given the
new features added to that
... spec. Silvia sent a list of the changes.
Nigel: Is that on public-tt?
Thierry: No, I can forward it. I asked her to make a list of
the changes like we did for TTML2
... so we can easily refer to the list to define what needs
review.
... She has already done that list.
Nigel: Is there a dependency on us reviewing the existing
disposition of comments before
... publishing a new WD?
Thierry: I don't think so, we need it to show the Director
before moving to CR, and the
... disposition will be a compilation of the comments from the
first and second reviews.
Nigel: OK it seems that we have a consensus on 6 weeks based on
those present today,
... as the WD review period.
<scribe> ACTION: tmichel to write to David and the CG saying we
should publish a new WD with a 6 week review period. [recorded
in [21]http://www.w3.org/2017/08/03-tt-minutes.html#action02]
[21] http://www.w3.org/2017/08/03-tt-minutes.html#action02
<trackbot> Created ACTION-501 - Write to david and the cg
saying we should publish a new wd with a 6 week review period.
[on Thierry Michel - due 2017-08-10].
<scribe> ACTION: tmichel Explain to David that we need a more
consistent Disposition of Comments for WebVTT. [recorded in
[22]http://www.w3.org/2017/08/03-tt-minutes.html#action03]
[22] http://www.w3.org/2017/08/03-tt-minutes.html#action03
<trackbot> Created ACTION-502 - Explain to david that we need a
more consistent disposition of comments for webvtt. [on Thierry
Michel - due 2017-08-10].
TTML2
Nigel: I just want to mention that I joined the Privacy IG's
meeting on Thursday last week
... to discuss TTML2 and my notes are at:
[23]TTML2 Horizontal Review - minutes from privacy WG today
[23] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tt/2017Jul/0069.html
Nigel: I don't think anyone in the meeting thought that any of
the points raised were
... particularly concerning but did think they are worth
mentioning.
Future meetings
Nigel: Next week I've scheduled our meeting for 1 hour, then
I'm away for 2 weeks, so unless
... anyone wants to step in to chair then the default will be
no meetings on 17th and 24th
... August, returning on 31st August.
... Okay, we're out of agenda for today, let's adjourn. Thanks
everyone!
Summary of Action Items
[NEW] ACTION: tmichel Create a new repo imsc-vnext-reqs
[recorded in
[24]http://www.w3.org/2017/08/03-tt-minutes.html#action01]
[NEW] ACTION: tmichel Explain to David that we need a more
consistent Disposition of Comments for WebVTT. [recorded in
[25]http://www.w3.org/2017/08/03-tt-minutes.html#action03]
[NEW] ACTION: tmichel to write to David and the CG saying we
should publish a new WD with a 6 week review period. [recorded
in [26]http://www.w3.org/2017/08/03-tt-minutes.html#action02]
[24] http://www.w3.org/2017/08/03-tt-minutes.html#action01
[25] http://www.w3.org/2017/08/03-tt-minutes.html#action03
[26] http://www.w3.org/2017/08/03-tt-minutes.html#action02
Summary of Resolutions
1. [27]Mixed units are permitted, Pierre to propose a removal
of the possibly misleading "either".
[End of minutes]
__________________________________________________________
Minutes formatted by David Booth's [28]scribe.perl version
1.152 ([29]CVS log)
$Date: 2017/08/03 16:09:25 $
[28] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
[29] 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 August 2017 16:10:48 UTC