- From: Nigel Megitt <nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk>
- Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2017 17:16:36 +0000
- To: Timed Text Working Group <public-tt@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <D4CB8EC9.38AD6%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/2017/02/16-tt-minutes.html
In text format:
[1]W3C
[1] http://www.w3.org/
Timed Text Working Group Teleconference
16 Feb 2017
See also: [2]IRC log
[2] http://www.w3.org/2017/02/16-tt-irc
Attendees
Present
Nigel, Glenn, tmichel, Thierry, Pierre, Rohit
Regrets
Mike, Andreas
Chair
Nigel
Scribe
nigel
Contents
* [3]Topics
1. [4]This meeting
2. [5]IMSC
3. [6]TTML
* [7]Summary of Action Items
* [8]Summary of Resolutions
__________________________________________________________
<scribe> scribe: nigel
This meeting
Nigel: We have an IMSC PR to review today, and the IMSC 1.x WD
for review. For TTML we don't have the right people here to
cover the focus topics. AOB?
group: No AOB.
glenn: I'd like to discuss the text orientation questions
raised recently on TTML.
IMSC
Nigel: We have 2 open pull requests, and 5 open issues.
-> [9]https://github.com/w3c/imsc/pull/214
[9] https://github.com/w3c/imsc/pull/214
->
[10]https://rawgit.com/w3c/imsc1/issue-211-activeArea-by-pos/im
sc1/spec/ttml-ww-profiles.html#ittp-activeArea
[10] https://rawgit.com/w3c/imsc1/issue-211-activeArea-by-pos/imsc1/spec/ttml-ww-profiles.html#ittp-activeArea
->
[11]https://www.w3.org/TR/css3-background/#background-position
[11] https://www.w3.org/TR/css3-background/#background-position
Pierre: I prefer to use the mathematical definition normatively
instead of the text.
Nigel: [edits] OK that should be there now.
Pierre: Works for me. So now as long as x and y and width and
height are between 0 and 100%,
... the right and bottom edges cannot be greater than 100%.
... I'm happy for you to merge that, noting that the term
Active Area needs to be changed
... to use the defined term.
Nigel: Ok I'll do that after the meeting.
-> [12]https://github.com/w3c/imsc/pull/209
[12] https://github.com/w3c/imsc/pull/209
Pierre: You can merge this.
Nigel: You can do it as Editor!
Pierre: OK, merging.
... You'll have to adjust your PR also Nigel.
Nigel: OK will do. Thanks.
-> [13]https://github.com/w3c/imsc/issues/213
[13] https://github.com/w3c/imsc/issues/213
Nigel: I think this actually originates in TTML1, where the
metadata element mentions
... elements in non-TT namespaces, but no other element does,
so it is unclear if foreign
... namespace content is permitted anywhere or just in
metadata.
Glenn: Fixing this in TTML1 would be a challenge because it
will affect conformance language.
Pierre: The question for IMSC is do we proceed with the IMSC WD
update without resolving this issue?
Nigel: (notes that having this discussion is tricky without
Mike who raised the issue)
Glenn: The definition of content conformance does not apply any
particular kind of processing. For example it does not say that
subsequent processing steps must use the result of the abstract
document instance.
... If it said that processing must do something based on it
then the foreign namespace elements would be pruned first.
... I think this is largely an implementation issue, in
practice.
... For example TTML1 §3.2.1 bullet 3 requires non-rejection
and non-abortion of the processing if an implied feature is
present.
Nigel: The key question is what we do for IMSC. It feels like a
TTML issue mainly.
Glenn: I could see an informative note helping under generic
processor conformance in TTML1 §3.2.
Pierre: When an element is pruned then all its children are
too?
Glenn: Yes, you wouldn't reparent its children.
Pierre: If we're agreed on the end result that foreign
namespace elements do not render
... documents non-conformant then I think we can defer that,
either in TTML1 or in IMSC1.0.1,
... the latter of which I would prefer not to do.
... The main thing is are we all agreed?
Glenn: The converse is that we would have to say that foreign
namespace content is part of
... the validity assessment process.
... I think the note we need to add is that pruned content for
validity assessment does not need
... to remain pruned for other onward processes.
Pierre: We should check that everyone is agreed on this.
Nigel: I'm happy to add a note on the issue and highlight this
question to the reflector.
... I would particularly like Andreas's view here.
Pierre: If we are all agreed then I think we're safe to defer
this and go ahead with a WD for
... Wide Review.
Glenn: Are we going to change the version to 1.1 before
publishing the next WD?
Nigel: I'm not sure if it is better to do it earlier or later.
Thierry?
Thierry: I have to check this.
Pierre: I recall Andreas and Mike really liking 1.0.1.
Glenn: I think we should put it to the group and not make a
change until we have consensus.
... It's worth having Thierry checking on what's possible here.
Nigel: I can ask Mike and Andreas if they would object going to
1.1.
Thierry: Ok let me investigate these two issues, the version
number change and if we can add a redirect from 1.0.1 to 1.1.
Pierre: I don't consider it a blocker for going to Wide Review.
Nigel: Re issue #212 I don't think that should hold us up and
I'm still looking at the practical issues.
Pierre: Definitely it should not hold us up as it is
informative only.
Nigel: Agreed.
... That's closed off all the IMSC 1.0.1 issues that are
urgent.
TTML
Glenn: I wanted to discuss text orientation issues.
Pierre: I noticed some differences in implementation between
CSS and XSL-FO and I wanted
... to know if the default for XSL-FO applies. Then what is the
mapping of that default
... 'vertical' to CSS?
Glenn: In the current draft of CSS3 Writing Mode it talks about
the SVG property text-orientation
... which was inherited from XSL-FO.
Pierre: I saw that, unfortunately they are marked for removal.
Glenn: Right, when I started on TTML2 when I got to text
orientation and combining I
... ignored the previous work on XSL-FO completely and
basically wrote in what was in an
... early draft of the CSS writing modes on this matter. It has
changed in CSS3 drafts.
... My question at this point, is regarding direction in the
context of text orientation.
... Obviously that only applies in vertical writing modes, ok?
Pierre: Of course.
Glenn: So that then implies that say Hebrew and Arabic in
upright are left to right which seems to make no sense.
Nigel: [scribe misses complex details]
Pierre: Here's a stupid question. In XSL-FO the default is
"auto" and that says that full width
... latin text is set with an orientation of 0º. For Arabic and
Hebrew "latin" does not apply and it
... is not full width either so what is the orientation?
Glenn: Full width only applies to Japanese and Chinese where
latin characters are made larger
<pal> - "glyph-orientation-vertical: auto" means "Fullwidth
ideographic and
<pal> fullwidth Latin text (excluding ideographic punctuation)
will be set
<pal> with a glyph-orientation of 0-degrees."
Glenn: to make them closer to the ideographic character bounds.
... There's a special Unicode code block for full width Latin.
... If you wrote normal ASCII characters that would not be 0º.
Pierre: So they would be rotated?
Glenn: Correct they would be sideways right.
Pierre: That solves my problem because "auto" maps 99% of the
time to "mixed" in CSS.
... And that also means that the IRT test vectors are
incorrect. Glenn, could you point out the
... difference between full width Latin and ASCII no the
thread?
Glenn: Sure.
Pierre: Thank you.
... By the way does it say in TTML1 that XSL-FO defaults apply?
Glenn: No it does not but that's a reasonable interpretation.
We never put it in the text.
Pierre: Okay.
Nigel: Which issue is that?
Glenn: It was an offline conversation.
Pierre: This needs more conversation before we decide it is an
issue.
Nigel: Thanks everyone [adjourns meeting]
Summary of Action Items
Summary of Resolutions
[End of minutes]
__________________________________________________________
Minutes formatted by David Booth's [14]scribe.perl version
1.148 ([15]CVS log)
$Date: 2017/02/16 17:15:53 $
[14] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
[15] 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, 16 February 2017 17:17:36 UTC