- From: Nigel Megitt <nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk>
- Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2017 16:15:51 +0000
- To: "public-tt@w3.org" <public-tt@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <D57AE2B1.43463%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/2017/06/29-tt-minutes.html
We made 2 resolutions:
RESOLUTION: Publish IMSC 1.0.1 based on the current ED with request for review by August 6 assuming there are no changes due to comments by ARIB tomorrow and the differences issue is resolved.
RESOLUTION: Publish a WD for WR of TTML2 based on the current ED, with a review period ending at end of September, preferably though not necessarily with pull request #396 merged.
The review period under our Decision Policy for these resolutions ends formally on 13th July, however since the resolutions are to take action ahead of that time, if there are any objections please raise them as soon as possible. The intent to make these resolutions has been signalled for at least 2 weeks already so we are not expecting any late objections.
Additionally the group will publish a new heartbeat WD of WebVTT in the near future to be followed by a WD for WR, under the resolution to permit auto-publishing Working Drafts to /TR after commits have been made to the master branch, made in Sapporo on 2015-10-28<https://www.w3.org/2015/10/28-tt-minutes.html#item05>.
Minutes in text format:
[1]W3C
[1] http://www.w3.org/
Timed Text Working Group Teleconference
29 Jun 2017
See also: [2]IRC log
[2] http://www.w3.org/2017/06/29-tt-irc
Attendees
Present
David, Nigel, Pierre, Thierry, Dae
Regrets
Glenn, Andreas
Chair
Nigel, Dave_Singer
Scribe
nigel
Contents
* [3]Topics
1. [4]This meeting
2. [5]WebVTT
3. [6]IMSC
4. [7]TTML
5. [8]TPAC
6. [9]HDR in PNG
* [10]Summary of Action Items
* [11]Summary of Resolutions
__________________________________________________________
<scribe> scribe: nigel
This meeting
Nigel: Today we have an agenda item on WebVTT that Dave will
take at the top of the meeting,
... then IMSC and TTML. We may be about to request publication
of three specifications
... all at once, at different levels of transition.
... We should also cover TPAC briefly if time allows.
... There's been a bit of progress on HDR in PNG too. Any other
business?
group: [silence]
WebVTT
Dave: We haven't talked about the WebVTT spec for a long time
on a call. I wanted to
... bring you up to speed. Firstly an apology we haven't been
publishing WDs, as I didn't
<dsinger_> [12]https://w3c.github.io/webvtt/
[12] https://w3c.github.io/webvtt/
Dave: realise we don't need permission to publish. Unless
anyone wants to object then
... we would like to publish the above as a new WD.
Nigel: For wide review?
Dave: Let's come to that. Initially just a heartbeat
publication.
<dsinger_> [13]https://www.w3.org/wiki/WebVTT_Wide_Review
[13] https://www.w3.org/wiki/WebVTT_Wide_Review
Dave: 2 years ago we requested wide review, and received a load
of comments. We finally
... reached resolution of all the issues raised. I asked the CG
to check once more on the
... disposition of all these bugs. Thierry has helped to build
the table of all these issues,
... including links to the issues and the dispositions.
... The WG status says @@ on every issue. At the bottom we see
the key for WG status
... to be filled in. I would like to see status 3.1 CG
disposition agreed by WG.
... I would like the WG to indicate in the next couple of weeks
if the disposition is okay
... or if more needs to be done, and let me know.
<dsinger_> By mid-June I would like to know how the WG feels on
the disposition of each of these
<dsinger_> Thierry and I will be verifying the commenters'
reactions to each of them
<dsinger_> The test suite was recently improved
Dave: I hope that by the middle of the month we have a new WD,
agreed dispositions
... and a test suite report, and then to publish the CR. I'd
like to be at CR by TPAC.
... Then we will discuss if we will have to remove features to
move to Rec. Now with the
... test suite and the spec dealt with... Oh one more request,
look at the GitHub issues
... that were not wide review and say if there are any there
that need to be fixed. I didn't
... think myself that any urgently need to be addressed but you
may disagree.
Nigel: Is there a requirements doc for WebVTT that we can
review against?
Dave: I don't think there was ever a formal requirements
document. We took it on as a
... working document from WHATWG, historically.
Thierry: I'd like to understand a bit more, because it's not
clear to me exactly what are
... the milestones. We are planning to publish on /TR a new WD,
that I understood.
... Then in parallel we are asking the TTWG to review the
comments that were sent and
... the proposals. I don't see what the TTWG could say now if
it's been approved by the CG
... and by the commenter, what could the WG bring? Then are we
going to trigger a new
... Wide Review before going to CR? The WR was 2 years ago and
there have been
... substantive changes since then.
<dsinger_> Push new WD now; review the disposition of the last
round of wide review comments [2 weeks]; then we'll do another
(briefer) wide review;
Dave: Yes push a WD now, review the disposition at WG level
over a couple of weeks
... if that is enough, then another WR request, and hopefully
fewer comments will arrive,
... and by then we will have a test report and I'm hoping we
can deal with any comments
... and then move to CR pretty rapidly.
Thierry: We don't need tests to get into CR. It's good if we do
but it's not a requirement.
Dave: I don't want to enter CR without the test suite being
reasonably complete and working.
Nigel: Have all the dispositions gone back to the commenter?
Dave: They have all been worked through in dialog with the
commenter.
... Nonetheless someone here might notice something we haven't
noticed. Formally the
... WG needs the opportunity to say if the disposition is not
good enough. I don't want
... to short-circuit the WG here.
Nigel: There was a question about how long we need to review.
Is 2 weeks enough?
<dsinger_> [14]https://www.w3.org/wiki/WebVTT_Wide_Review
[14] https://www.w3.org/wiki/WebVTT_Wide_Review
<dsinger_> [15]https://w3c.github.io/webvtt/
[15] https://w3c.github.io/webvtt/
Thierry: Another issue: why are we publishing a WD in a few
days and then waiting
... 2 weeks or so for the WG to respond? Why not directly
publish a WR document?
Dave: We could get WR on this WD if you like, and do them in
parallel.
Thierry: I don't see the difference actually.
Dave: Yes let's parallelise it, if you can help publish the WR
requests Thierry.
Thierry: Okay, if the TTWG publishes this as a WR we need to
agree a review period by
... the public.
Dave: Yes, what's typical?
Thierry: I think at least 4 weeks, given it's summer.
Dave: I'd be happy with end of July assuming we publish the WD
in the next day or two.
... OK?
... Thierry if you could help with this that would be helpful.
Thierry: I tried yesterday but it uses Bikeshed and I don't
know how that works - I spent
... 4 hours yesterday trying to understand it and I still could
not achieve it. I need to go
... through the usual former publication process by the
WebMaster unless Philippe can
... give me some help.
Dave: Silvia might be able to help.
Thierry: Bikeshed is typically used in CSS WG and not many
other groups.
<dsinger_> Silvia and/or Philippe (or the CSS folks) can
probably help. Bikeshed is widely used, I think
Nigel: So it's going to be 4 weeks post-publication?
Thierry: That's the minimum especially in summer.
Nigel: Do you want longer?
Thierry: I'm saying it's the minimum.
Dave: It's the second round and all the changes have been as a
result of the previous
... round of wide review.
Thierry: I think what we should do is restrict the wide review
to the new features that
... were added, so I don't know if we have a list of
substantive changes that were done.
Dave: That's a good point.
Thierry: You can ask in the review to review only the delta.
Dave: Yes, I will work with the Editors on working out what
that list is.
... If you can help me work out the differences Thierry I will
do that.
Thierry: It says that on the wiki page.
<dsinger_> previous Wide Review was
[16]https://www.w3.org/TR/2014/WD-webvtt1-20141113/
[16] https://www.w3.org/TR/2014/WD-webvtt1-20141113/
Dave: I'll do a review and indicate the significant changes
since then.
... Sounds like a plan - we'll push the WD, analyse the
differences, get the WG dispositions agreed.
Nigel: We need the deltas for the WD for WR, which normally go
in the SOTD.
Thierry: So we do a standard WD publication in the next few
days, then a WR WD when
... we have that ready.
Dave: Ok
Thierry: I will work with Philippe to publish the current
version as the new WD and if I
... can't do that I will ask the WebMaster to do it on Tuesday.
Dave: Ok, thanks.
... Thanks for getting the details of exactly what we need to
do. Thierry please help
... to make sure we don't drop any of these.
... Thanks everyone, [drops off]
IMSC
action-498?
<trackbot> action-498 -- Nigel Megitt to Invite i18n to discuss
imsc 1.0.1 issues -- due 2017-06-15 -- PENDINGREVIEW
<trackbot>
[17]http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/tracker/actions/498
[17] http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/tracker/actions/498
Nigel: Huge apologies for this dropping off my radar, but I
entirely failed to do it.
... I mean to ping them again after last week's meeting. The
original invitation was sent.
... Obviously Richard and Addison were pinged on the GitHub
issues in any case.
... For now I want to close the action since they did not
respond.
close action-498
<trackbot> Closed action-498.
Nigel: In terms of the timeline Pierre, you have closed the
issues where we said we
... would do so after a deadline.
Pierre: There are two ARIB WR issues that can't be closed until
tomorrow unfortunately.
Nigel: We haven't seen anything from ARIB - Thierry?
Thierry: No that's correct. If we don't get anything by
tomorrow I propose to close the issue.
Pierre: The issues that remain are:
[18]Add diff from IMSC 1.0.0 and update
substantive-changes-summary.txt
[18] https://github.com/w3c/imsc/issues/244
Pierre: I can't do that until #227 and #228 are closed
tomorrow, so I will have a draft ready for publication on
Monday.
Nigel: Right now I think it's quite unlikely we will get a
response in time, but it's possible.
... Is it worth preparing #244 in anticipation of no more
changes?
Pierre: I was going to do that over the weekend so it would be
available to Thierry on Monday.
... The only outstanding point without an issue is what we do
with the schemas.
... We have dealt with it for IMSC1 but we need to agree how we
are going to publish
... XSDs going forward.
Nigel: It's good to raise that. I put forward one view, but it
may be too much change for some people.
Pierre: The goal is to reference the XSDs from the spec in a
way that can be referenced
... and updated by group Consensus, right?
Thierry: I agree.
Nigel: I agree too.
Thierry: If the schemas were normative we would have no choice,
but since they are
... not normative we can publish them anywhere. There are no
restrictions or guidelines.
... In the past we published them on the W3C site at some URI
but now people are using
... GitHub. I'm fine with either proposal. I don't think GitHub
is very friendly. I prefer a
... page that directly shows up in my browser but that's really
personal. I think w3.org
... is a more stable URI because we don't know what will happen
with GitHub one day.
Nigel: You can download that on GitHub directly.
Thierry: Yes but its hard to find.
Pierre: My main concern with GitHub is that anyone can change
the tags, so I would rather
... have a more formal publication step on the W3C site.
Nigel: I don't mind either option. Would we publish a wrapper
page or would the URL
... just point to a directory?
Thierry: It would be like IMSC 1 with a wrapper.
Nigel: If its a wrapper then we can do both, since it will
always be on GitHub anyway.
... Then people who find GitHub easier can use that, or people
who prefer the direct download
... can get it from a W3C resource.
Pierre: I would be having them in a GitHub repo with a tagged
release anyway.
Thierry: Would you prefer separate downloads or a ZIP to be
downloadable?
Pierre: Right now we have a wrapper page? I would do exactly
the same and what I would
... need from Thierry is that W3C page so I can put the XSD in
the doc.
<tmichel> I propose to host those schemas at
<tmichel>
[19]https://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/IMSC/ttml-imsc1.0.1/xml-sc
hemas/
[19] https://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/IMSC/ttml-imsc1.0.1/xml-schemas/
<pal> the same as
[20]https://www.w3.org/TR/2017/WD-ttml-imsc1.0.1-20170322/xml-s
chemas/
[20] https://www.w3.org/TR/2017/WD-ttml-imsc1.0.1-20170322/xml-schemas/
Nigel: I thought that was a directory listing but I see it's
actually a wrapper page.
... So we can add to that wrapper page a link to the GitHub
page with the latest release tag?
Pierre: If they want to go to GitHub then they can just go
there.
Nigel: How would they know to do that?
Pierre: I'm reluctant to point to a specific release tag or
path on GitHub because that
... can change. We can point to the repo, or if you think a ZIP
is better we can just put a
... ZIP there. I'm trying to avoid duplication.
Thierry: Me too, I'd like to avoid that.
Nigel: I don't think it is duplication - or any duplication is
from the GitHub repo to the
... w3 site.
Pierre: By design or mistake it's really easy to change the
release tags.
Nigel: I'd like to check maybe with Philippe if we can manage
the rights to create or modify
... release tags, and if we can add it then do so.
Thierry: Anyhow we can modify the page anytime to add new links
if we want.
<pal>
[21]https://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/IMSC/ttml-imsc1.0.1/xml-sc
hemas.zip
[21] https://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/IMSC/ttml-imsc1.0.1/xml-schemas.zip
Pierre: The link now will be slightly different because it will
have a URL like the above?
Thierry: I thought we would have a wrapper page and then in
that wrapper page we can
... add a link to GitHub if we want. And we can even add a link
to a ZIP file from that
... wrapper page.
Pierre: Okay that sounds fine to me.
... I'll add a new issue for moving the XSDs to outside of /TR.
Thierry: You know when we changed the XSD in place I put a
comment in the XSD to
... say that it was changed inplace on June 23 so I propose to
remove that for 1.0.1.
... It was just to explain the change on the Rec home page.
Pierre: Yes, anyway, it's not in the GitHub version.
Thierry: Should I take the GitHub version?
Pierre: Absolutely.
Thierry: OK I'll start from that.
Nigel: Okay I'd like to propose CR publication based on no
changes coming from ARIB.
... Did we set a review deadline?
Pierre: Yes we said August 6.
Thierry: Okay I have prepared a transition request document
which I will send to the
... Director because we don't have any formal objection anymore
so I hope we don't need a call.
Nigel: Oh thanks for the reminder - Glenn told me he will not
object formally to CR
... publication as v 1.0.1.
PROPOSAL: Publish IMSC 1.0.1 based on the current ED with
request for review by August 6 assuming there are no changes
due to comments by ARIB tomorrow and the differences issue is
resolved.
Pierre: CR publication for July 6 and end of CR to August 6?
Thierry: Yes.
Pierre: Add diff from IMSC 1 and add substantive changes
summary and update the
... XSD link.
... These are all captured in #244 and #248 in GitHub.
Nigel: Is there any more work to do on the Disposition of
comments for the CR transition request?
Thierry: There are some issues I'm not sure if they are closed
or not.
<tmichel>
[22]https://www.w3.org/wiki/IMSC1.0.1_Comments_tracker
[22] https://www.w3.org/wiki/IMSC1.0.1_Comments_tracker
Thierry: What remains is the Call for Review to W3C groups -
only i18n responded.
... Nigel if you can provide me with the exact list of external
bodies that you sent the
... calls for review to?
Nigel: They are all in the member-tt archives, if you could get
them from there.
Thierry: I will do that.
... Now the comments themselves: we have only 1 comment from
ARIB and we are...
Nigel: Sorry to interrupt, didn't we get a positive comment
from DVB?
Thierry: Maybe - if you find it send me the link.
Nigel: Will do.
Thierry: Now we have 3 issues: #236 with no answer from
Richard?
Pierre: True, no further communications since 2 weeks ago.
Thierry: Should we close that and say it's done?
Nigel: It's already closed.
Thierry: The next from Richard is done and the last from
Addison also closed due to no answer.
... Then there are 9 comments from WG members. I'm not sure the
latest status on some of them.
... 5 are marked as pending - Pierre, what is the latest status
for those?
Pierre: They're all on GitHub right?
Thierry: Yes but it's not clear to me if it was agreed.
Pierre: #221 the commenter never agreed.
... I think it resolves the comment.
Thierry: So there's no response from the commenter?
Pierre: Correct, nobody disagreed.
Thierry: okay that one is "no response, closed".
... Then we have #223.
Pierre: This was just a question.
Nigel: And the person who asked it closed the issue.
Thierry: Ok that's closed.
... Now #228?
Pierre: That's one from ARIB.
Thierry: OK I understand now. I've been tracking it in the
archives only.
... Then #232 and #242.
Pierre: #232 was my comment and I'm happy with the resolution.
Thierry: Thank you.
... Then we have #234.
Pierre: Andreas created it and it is part of the solution to
#233.
Nigel: Andreas proposed the pull request to resolve #233. #234
was merged.
... Since the original issue was #233 that was raised by
Andreas I think we can conclude
... that he was happy with it.
Thierry: Ok, the next is #238.
Pierre: That was closed by the commenter.
Thierry: Ok, the last one is #240.
Pierre: that was mine, and I'm happy with it.
Thierry: Okay I will finish the disposition of comments today
so that we are ready and
... then I'll send the transition request on Monday because I
need to have the CR version
... document. Okay?
Nigel: Please could you send me the updated draft transition
request before you raise it?
Thierry: I'll send it to you on Monday because I need the final
details, and I have to remove
... the placeholder for the formal objection.
Nigel: My diary is okay on Monday so I should be able to scan
it and return it fairly quickly.
RESOLUTION: Publish IMSC 1.0.1 based on the current ED with
request for review by August 6 assuming there are no changes
due to comments by ARIB tomorrow and the differences issue is
resolved.
Nigel: Thank you all, is there anything else on IMSC?
group: [silence]
TTML
Nigel: Our goal here is to publish the current ED as a WD for
Wide Review.
... Current status: We have been discussing ttp:mediaOffset
offline, and there is one comment on the open pull request, to
complete #195.
... #396 is the audio related features pull request and I just
asked for the features
... to be added to profiles where they are currently omitted,
for completeness.
... I don't know why Glenn hasn't responded to that comment, or
done it - anyway
... I can do it.
... On the mediaOffset issue #323 I don't want to hold back WR
publication - I guess
... we can still remove between WR and CR if there are
supporting negative comments.
Pierre: I agree with you Nigel that there's no use case for
that feature and it will actually
... cause harm so I would like to remove it (see the issue!).
... However given the desire to publish the WD for WR I would
not hold up that publication.
... For the record Movielabs would not object to the
publication of the WD for WR as long
... as the review period is no less than 3 months to give
adequate time for review including
... by groups with long review cycles.
PROPOSAL: Publish a WD for WR of TTML2 based on the current ED,
with a review period ending at end of September.
Nigel: I think we can probably add the audio feature
designators after WR publication though I would prefer to
include them before.
... In that case the only action will be on Glenn to update the
SOTD for the review period
... and then publish with echidna.
Dae: Can I close the open i18n issues where I haven't had a
response yet?
Nigel: No they can stay open until we need to move to CR.
Pierre: You can definitely not close those - we haven't even
given a deadline for feedback yet.
Dae: I want to close off the issues that are related to printed
publication not to
... subtitles.
Nigel: What we need to do is go through each issue, for you to
propose that disposition,
... for the group to agree it, and then to go back to the
commenter and check they are okay with it.
Dae: Okay sure.
Nigel: For the proposal, I'm hearing no objections?
Dae: Yes, and that keeps us on track for end of 2017.
Nigel: It does if we have implementations so we are confident
of moving out of CR quickly.
Dae: Yes.
RESOLUTION: Publish a WD for WR of TTML2 based on the current
ED, with a review period ending at end of September, preferably
though not necessarily with pull request #396 merged.
Nigel: Anything else to cover now on TTML?
group: [silence]
TPAC
action-497?
<trackbot> action-497 -- Nigel Megitt to Invite csswg to joint
meeting at tpac 2017, with list of topics. -- due 2017-06-15 --
OPEN
<trackbot>
[23]http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/tracker/actions/497
[23] http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/tracker/actions/497
Nigel: Apologies this has slipped another week - I will get
around to this!
HDR in PNG
Pierre: Some progress here on the PQ HDR in PNG. Adobe has
officially released the
... sample ICC profile for publication by W3C.
... I never heard back from Chris Lilley so I opened a pull
request to try to address his concerns.
... Also I've heard concerns that this PQ in PNG approach,
because PNG is limited to 8 bit
... or 16 bit, and 8 is not sufficient for general HDR use and
16 is not efficient, so PNG
... is not suitable for this use case. I've encouraged the
concerned party to raise a comment
... on GitHub as an issue.
... I think it's a legitimate concern. It means that the scope
of the document goes from
... being general to specifically how do I do PQ in PNG until
there's a better solution.
... The scope of the document will be limited to be just for
subtitles and captions.
Nigel: It's a general purpose format so how can you tell people
what they can or cannot use it for?
Pierre: The document would say it is appropriate for that use
but may not be appropriate
... for other applications.
Nigel: I see.
Pierre: My plan is, if we get that comment, to address it and
maybe in a couple of weeks
... have something for the group to consider.
Nigel: Thank you!
Pierre: I've also learned yesterday that this is actually in
use today - these kinds of PNGs
... are being exchanged now to address those markets that
accept HDR content.
... Documenting that is a good idea.
Nigel: Are they doing that in the absence of any referrable
document?
Pierre: Yes they'd really like a referrable document!
Nigel: Thanks, I think we've covered everything on our agenda.
[adjourns meeting]
Summary of Action Items
Summary of Resolutions
1. [24]Publish IMSC 1.0.1 based on the current ED with request
for review by August 6 assuming there are no changes due to
comments by ARIB tomorrow and the differences issue is
resolved.
2. [25]Publish a WD for WR of TTML2 based on the current ED,
with a review period ending at end of September, preferably
though not necessarily with pull request #396 merged.
[End of minutes]
__________________________________________________________
Minutes formatted by David Booth's [26]scribe.perl version
1.152 ([27]CVS log)
$Date: 2017/06/29 16:12:21 $
[26] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
[27] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/
Received on Thursday, 29 June 2017 16:16:22 UTC