- From: David Ronca <dronca@netflix.com>
- Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2018 13:52:05 -0700
- To: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
- Cc: Nigel Megitt <nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk>, Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>, Public TTWG List <public-tt@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAMjV-Fi_QsRXCqzf=YfVc=KCR3sN+Vuh543PBag43w=kk-LmHw@mail.gmail.com>
> ... features are natively supported in html/CSS as well? html/css support is not complete, but fairly close, and the CSS groups has indicated a willingness to address the missing features. We have an internal TTML2->CSS implementation that has been well tested and seems to cover JA subtitle feature set reasonably well, but not always a clean mapping. On Mon, Apr 2, 2018 at 1:32 PM, Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi David, > > This is amazing! Thanks for sharing that blog post. I've not been able to > get this much detailed information on what the requirements are around > subtitles in Japanese before. Did you with with the i18n group on making > sure all these features are natively supported in html/CSS as well? > > I think the current webvtt specification supports most of these features, > apart from the slanting, but we would need to do a proper assessment and > write proper test files. > > I'll add an issue in GitHub for it - it should be in the list for webvtt > v2. > > Kind regards, > Silvia. > > > On Tue., 3 Apr. 2018, 12:05 am David Ronca, <dronca@netflix.com> wrote: > >> >> > defined as "essential Japanese subtitle features"? >> We define the essential Japanese features in this techblog >> <https://medium.com/netflix-techblog/implementing-japanese-subtitles-on-netflix-c165fbe61989>, >> which is based on a presentation and paper that we shared with TTWG. This >> is based on our work to launch in Japan, and a rather large set of JA >> subtitle assets. >> >> On Mon, Apr 2, 2018 at 1:55 AM, Silvia Pfeiffer < >> silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Hi David, >>> >>> What I meant was that Microsoft only supports a minimal feature set >>> which is about as much as SRT. There's no official definition of >>> "minimal feature set". The other browsers support more with Chrome and >>> Mozilla basically everything except for scrolling regions. All Apple >>> implementations are close to complete. >>> >>> About ruby support: it's as good as HTML's ruby support for now. >>> >>> Counter question: what is defined as "essential Japanese subtitle >>> features"? >>> >>> Cheers, >>> Silvia. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Apr 2, 2018 at 4:33 PM, David Ronca <dronca@netflix.com> wrote: >>> >> because the browsers don't provide sufficient support (specifically >>> >> Microsoft's browsers - the others support the minimal feature set) >>> > >>> > How to reconcile this with David Singer's statement that "VTT is >>> supported >>> > in all major browsers"? Also, the how is "minimal feature set" >>> defined. >>> > Must be more than SRT, I expect. I am especially curious about WebVTT >>> > support for Japanese subtitles. We have not seen a WebVTT >>> implementation >>> > that can properly the essential Japanese subtitle features. Is there >>> such >>> > an implementation that someone can point us to? >>> > >>> > On Thu, Mar 29, 2018 at 7:55 PM, Silvia Pfeiffer < >>> silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com> >>> > wrote: >>> >> >>> >> Congratulations on the resolution for webvtt to move to CR! I'll help >>> >> where I can. >>> >> >>> >> About the question of interest: many video player publishers had to >>> write >>> >> their own webvtt interpreters & renderers because the browsers don't >>> provide >>> >> sufficient support (specifically Microsoft's browsers - the others >>> support >>> >> the minimal feature set). At FOMS we consistently hear the request by >>> the >>> >> player vendors and content publishers who don't want to have to write >>> and >>> >> maintain their own captioning library but the state of implementation >>> in >>> >> browsers is a problem. It's a chicken and egg thing and it's my hope >>> that a >>> >> push for CR/REC will change that. >>> >> >>> >> I hope this helps. >>> >> >>> >> Cheers, >>> >> Silvia. >>> >> >>> >> On Fri., 30 Mar. 2018, 3:25 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/2018/03/29-tt-minutes.html >>> >>> >>> >>> In text format: >>> >>> >>> >>> [1]W3C >>> >>> >>> >>> [1] http://www.w3.org/ >>> >>> >>> >>> Timed Text Working Group Teleconference >>> >>> >>> >>> 29 Mar 2018 >>> >>> >>> >>> See also: [2]IRC log >>> >>> >>> >>> [2] https://www.w3.org/2018/03/29-tt-irc >>> >>> >>> >>> Attendees >>> >>> >>> >>> Present >>> >>> Cyril, Pierre, Nigel, dsinger, Thierry, Philippe >>> >>> >>> >>> Regrets >>> >>> Andreas >>> >>> >>> >>> Chair >>> >>> Nigel >>> >>> >>> >>> Scribe >>> >>> nigel >>> >>> >>> >>> Contents >>> >>> >>> >>> * [3]Topics >>> >>> 1. [4]This meeting >>> >>> 2. [5]F2F meetings >>> >>> 3. [6]TTML1 3rd Edition CR >>> >>> 4. [7]IMSC >>> >>> 5. [8]Update feature list per TTML2 imsc#350 >>> >>> 6. [9]Clarify the use of recommended character sets >>> >>> imsc#354 >>> >>> 7. [10]TTWG Charter >>> >>> 8. [11]WebVTT >>> >>> 9. [12]TTWG Charter >>> >>> 10. [13]Travis >>> >>> 11. [14]Audio Profile of TTML2 >>> >>> 12. [15]Meeting Close >>> >>> * [16]Summary of Action Items >>> >>> * [17]Summary of Resolutions >>> >>> __________________________________________________________ >>> >>> >>> >>> <scribe> scribe: nigel >>> >>> >>> >>> This meeting >>> >>> >>> >>> Nigel: Next week I'm able to make the call, but the week after, >>> >>> the 12th, I can't. >>> >>> >>> >>> Cyril: I also can't make the 12th. >>> >>> >>> >>> Pierre: Regrets for me for the 19th. >>> >>> >>> >>> Nigel: For today, we have TTWG Charter, if there's more to >>> >>> discuss on that - will wait for >>> >>> ... staff to join before confirming. >>> >>> ... We also have TPAC, and a possible F2F in Munich in May, >>> >>> ... TTML1 3rd Edition CR needs to be discussed. >>> >>> ... Not sure if there's anything to discuss on TTML2. >>> >>> ... For IMSC there is one agenda point, a pull request, which >>> >>> we may be able to resolve with >>> >>> ... a brief conversation. >>> >>> ... If we have time we can go through the IMSC vNext Reqs pull >>> >>> requests, which have been >>> >>> ... open for a while. >>> >>> ... I don't think there's anything to discuss on CSS. >>> >>> ... Do we have something for WebVTT? >>> >>> >>> >>> David: Yes, we should approve the transition to CR. >>> >>> >>> >>> Nigel: Any preferences about what order we do these in? >>> >>> >>> >>> Pierre: I'd really like to close the IMSC ticket, because it is >>> >>> blocking CR. >>> >>> ... If there's anything missing on that push-back on TTML1 we >>> >>> should address that ASAP. >>> >>> >>> >>> Nigel: We should be able to get through everything today - >>> >>> we're scheduled for 2 hours. >>> >>> >>> >>> F2F meetings >>> >>> >>> >>> Nigel: Thierry wants us to discuss if we wish to meet at TPAC >>> >>> in Lyon, which is at the end >>> >>> ... of October this year. >>> >>> ... I expect us to be getting towards the end of our Rec >>> >>> transitions for all our specs at that >>> >>> ... time, but I expect there will be a lot to discuss, so I >>> >>> propose that we ask for what we >>> >>> ... usually ask for, i.e. 2 days. >>> >>> >>> >>> Pierre: Sounds good. >>> >>> >>> >>> Nigel: Okay, I'll complete the WBS for TTWG asking for that. >>> >>> ... There will be a request for any groups we don't want to >>> >>> clash with, or want to have joint >>> >>> ... meetings with. I would at least propose that we ask for a >>> >>> joint meeting with CSS WG like >>> >>> ... we did last time, on the basis that we expect to have made >>> >>> some progress. >>> >>> ... Any other thoughts? >>> >>> >>> >>> group: [silence] >>> >>> >>> >>> Nigel: The next proposal is that we have a f2f on May 22 and >>> >>> 23rd at IRT in Munich. Andreas >>> >>> ... has kindly offered to make space available there before the >>> >>> IRT subtitle technology symposium, >>> >>> ... and I think the timing will be good to iterate over TTML2 >>> >>> and IMSC 1.1 tests for the test suite. >>> >>> >>> >>> Cyril: I might be able to make that. >>> >>> >>> >>> Pierre: It's unlikely I'd be able to make it. >>> >>> >>> >>> Nigel: Okay, I'll send an email round about this; for now it is >>> >>> a proposal. I think if we >>> >>> ... intend to talk about test suites we need the right people >>> >>> in attendance. >>> >>> >>> >>> TTML1 3rd Edition CR >>> >>> >>> >>> Nigel: We submitted the transition request to CR for TTML1 >>> >>> Third Edition and Ralph >>> >>> ... responded expressing surprise that no new tests have been >>> >>> created to verify that implementations >>> >>> ... conform to the clarifications and error corrections. He >>> >>> asked if the test suite has been >>> >>> ... updated at all. He's basically asking us to update the test >>> >>> suite to demonstrate it. >>> >>> >>> >>> Pierre: I think it only needs to be updated selectively to >>> >>> cover the areas changed. >>> >>> >>> >>> Nigel: I think that's right. >>> >>> >>> >>> Pierre: I think that's possible to do. >>> >>> >>> >>> Nigel: I think if we're claiming that implementations meet the >>> >>> updates already then we need >>> >>> ... to provide evidence. >>> >>> >>> >>> Pierre: My recommendation is to change the SOTD to include exit >>> >>> criteria that require >>> >>> ... passing tests, and then create those test suites. >>> >>> Alternatively I could provide GitHub >>> >>> ... pointers to issues on imsc.js, but that might be a lot of >>> >>> work with no guarantee of success. >>> >>> >>> >>> Nigel: That would work. >>> >>> ... If we're going to do that we need to make the updates and >>> >>> re-file the transition request. >>> >>> >>> >>> Pierre: I'll make the SOTD updates. >>> >>> >>> >>> Nigel: When that's done, please let me and Thierry know so >>> >>> Thierry can update the transition request. >>> >>> >>> >>> IMSC >>> >>> >>> >>> Nigel: we have one pull request on the agenda. >>> >>> >>> >>> Update feature list per TTML2 imsc#350 >>> >>> >>> >>> github: [18]https://github.com/w3c/imsc/pull/350 >>> >>> >>> >>> [18] https://github.com/w3c/imsc/pull/350 >>> >>> >>> >>> Nigel: I think the main issue here is the syntax permitted for >>> >>> tts:extent. >>> >>> ... I don't understand why the `auto` value is permitted for >>> >>> `tts:extent` on `tt:tt`... >>> >>> >>> >>> Pierre: It was permitted before. >>> >>> >>> >>> Nigel: But has its meaning changed? It used to be defined as >>> >>> the Root Container Region, >>> >>> ... now it is defined as "contains" whose meaning is defined by >>> >>> appendix H. >>> >>> >>> >>> Pierre: When I went through this before I decided that >>> >>> "contains" ends up meaning the same >>> >>> ... as "auto" used to mean in TTML1 - it yielded the right >>> >>> outcome. >>> >>> ... Note that in IMSC pixelAspectRatio is prohibited, so >>> >>> "contains" resolves as the display >>> >>> ... aspect ratio of the root container region. >>> >>> >>> >>> Cyril: And the algorithm in H.1 and H.2 match? >>> >>> >>> >>> Pierre: Yes, if there's no DAR and PAR then it's H.1.1 which >>> >>> corresponds to TTML1 100% 100%, >>> >>> ... i.e. auto semantics. >>> >>> >>> >>> Nigel: So Pierre you're arguing that contain and auto resolve >>> >>> to the same so it is better to >>> >>> ... have a single syntax option rather than allow the >>> >>> semantically more precise "contain"? >>> >>> >>> >>> Pierre: Yes. >>> >>> >>> >>> Cyril: There may be cases where auto and contain resolve >>> >>> differently? >>> >>> >>> >>> Pierre: Outside the tt element, maybe, but on the tt element >>> >>> they are identical. >>> >>> >>> >>> Cyril: Yes, the spec says if the value is auto, and its the tt >>> >>> element, then it maps to contain. >>> >>> ... So they are equivalent. >>> >>> ... I think the constraint on IMSC is correct. >>> >>> >>> >>> Nigel: Okay, I'm persuaded. >>> >>> ... The next comment here is about extends and restricts. >>> >>> Pierre commented that >>> >>> ... there's no requirement for them, and presumably there's no >>> >>> benefit identified for them here? >>> >>> >>> >>> Pierre: No, I have not. >>> >>> >>> >>> Nigel: I can see that from an implementation perspective it may >>> >>> add a fair amount of code >>> >>> ... and tests to allow extends and restricts. >>> >>> >>> >>> Pierre: Also this new TTML2 syntax was not broken out as a >>> >>> specific feature designator. >>> >>> ... I think I raised an issue on TTML2 for that. >>> >>> ... Maybe later it will be made a feature and we can then >>> >>> refactor this text. >>> >>> ... It would be a lot clearer. >>> >>> >>> >>> Nigel: Ok, there are conflicts here but I'm happy to approve >>> >>> the changes. >>> >>> >>> >>> SUMMARY: @nigelmegitt to approve the pull request >>> >>> >>> >>> Pierre: The conflicts are super-boring, I'll fix those. >>> >>> >>> >>> github-bot, end topic >>> >>> >>> >>> Clarify the use of recommended character sets imsc#354 >>> >>> >>> >>> github: [19]https://github.com/w3c/imsc/pull/354 >>> >>> >>> >>> [19] https://github.com/w3c/imsc/pull/354 >>> >>> >>> >>> Nigel: You're waiting on someone from i18n on this, Pierre? >>> >>> >>> >>> Pierre: Yes, during the call people used the term "safe" but >>> >>> the comments were against that. >>> >>> ... Instead, I've proposed to use "common" and am waiting for a >>> >>> response on that. >>> >>> >>> >>> Nigel: That change was made on the pull request, but there's no >>> >>> comment about it, but >>> >>> ... there is on the issue? >>> >>> >>> >>> Pierre: Oh yes, I could prompt Addison to review with a comment >>> >>> on the pull request. I'll just do that. >>> >>> >>> >>> Nigel: I'm not sure what we can do more on this at the moment. >>> >>> >>> >>> Pierre: It is only a matter of finding the right terminology >>> >>> now, I think we're good on the rest. >>> >>> >>> >>> Nigel: Looks that way. >>> >>> >>> >>> SUMMARY: WG awaiting review feedback from i18n. >>> >>> >>> >>> Pierre: We should communicate to them that we plan to request >>> >>> transition to CR in 7 days >>> >>> ... so they need to come back soon if they have a strong >>> >>> concern. >>> >>> >>> >>> Nigel: That sounds like an action for me to send a message >>> >>> immediately after this meeting. >>> >>> >>> >>> github-bot, end topic >>> >>> >>> >>> TTWG Charter >>> >>> >>> >>> Thierry: Not much to discuss - I have submitted the draft >>> >>> charter to W3M, and I think they >>> >>> ... were supposed to review it yesterday but I have nothing to >>> >>> report yet. >>> >>> >>> >>> WebVTT >>> >>> >>> >>> <scribe> Chair: David >>> >>> >>> >>> David: At TPAC we looked at the transition request, and the >>> >>> actions requested have been >>> >>> ... done. We were waiting on closing out some issues on the >>> >>> spec which Nigel was unable >>> >>> ... to get to for the first few weeks of this year. My feeling >>> >>> is that the remaining issues can >>> >>> >>> >>> <dsinger> >>> >>> [20]https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tt/2018Mar/0133 >>> >>> .html >>> >>> >>> >>> [20] >>> >>> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tt/2018Mar/0133.html >>> >>> >>> >>> David: be closed off in CR. I would like to ask for the formal >>> >>> agreement of the group to do >>> >>> ... the final transition. I sent the final draft of the request >>> >>> a couple of days ago. >>> >>> ... I updated the wide review page a couple of days ago to >>> >>> reflect the current status. I hope >>> >>> ... we're at the formal stages now - we had the [scribe loses >>> >>> track] >>> >>> ... There will likely be some changes to be made during CR, >>> >>> which are not major changes >>> >>> ... for implementors but may for example require a change to >>> >>> the computed CSS property value for something. >>> >>> ... I think we need an updated version of the spec with SOTD >>> >>> etc for CR, which Silvia and/or >>> >>> ... Thierry can do. >>> >>> >>> >>> <dsinger> The remaining edits are clarification, warning, and >>> >>> so on and don’t represent technical changes to the >>> >>> specification, so I think it’s safe to do them along with any >>> >>> other disambiguations needed by implementers during CR. >>> >>> >>> >>> Nigel: What I normally do at this point is ask Thierry what is >>> >>> needed now for the transition request? >>> >>> >>> >>> Thierry: For the SOTD there are a few things that need to be >>> >>> put in, first the exit criteria. >>> >>> ... From David's statement, that is like what we have been >>> >>> using within this group, 2 implementations >>> >>> ... for each feature, so that sound good. >>> >>> ... The second thing I have not seen are the features at risk, >>> >>> because there are some features >>> >>> ... that are not implemented like regions and some others. >>> >>> >>> >>> David: We discussed this, it's at the end of point 1, and as >>> >>> discussed, we don't want to drop >>> >>> ... them so we aren't marking them as at risk. They are not >>> >>> features to drop if they are not >>> >>> ... implemented. The group wanted to wait until they're >>> >>> implemented, and have no features at risk. >>> >>> >>> >>> Thierry: Okay. Another thing is for the test suite and the >>> >>> implementation report. Of course >>> >>> ... we have to fill the implementation report in later. We >>> >>> should have a link to a test suite >>> >>> ... or something if it is incomplete. >>> >>> >>> >>> David: Yes, that's also in the transition request, there's a >>> >>> fairly thorough test suite in >>> >>> ... web platform tests, which generates automated reports for >>> >>> browsers, and we're going to >>> >>> ... have work out how to do that for non-browser >>> >>> implementations during CR. That's for >>> >>> ... me and the group to do during CR. >>> >>> >>> >>> Nigel: We don't normally ask for that at this stage? >>> >>> >>> >>> Thierry: We don't need the whole thing, just a link to whatever >>> >>> is there. >>> >>> >>> >>> David: We believe it is pretty thorough at this point, I'm sure >>> >>> there are bugs that people will >>> >>> ... find during implementation work. >>> >>> >>> >>> Thierry: The last bit is the wide review, I guess it is done, >>> >>> we have a URI, and it will be up >>> >>> ... to the Director to review it. >>> >>> ... The last thing is WG approval for transitioning. >>> >>> ... I need a link to point to. >>> >>> >>> >>> PROPOSAL: Agree to the CR transition to WebVTT >>> >>> >>> >>> Pierre: For clarity, that's based on the gh-pages branch on >>> >>> GitHub? >>> >>> >>> >>> David: Yes, that's correct, Silvia will need to update that. >>> >>> >>> >>> Pierre: And all the licence and IPR issues have been addressed >>> >>> and there's not going to be >>> >>> ... any drama there? >>> >>> >>> >>> David: I don't think so, no exclusions have been filed so far >>> >>> and we asked for FSA from all >>> >>> ... the CG contributors. >>> >>> >>> >>> Pierre: And some of the contributions have been from the CG >>> >>> since then, or all from members of the WG? >>> >>> ... (after that commitment was received) >>> >>> >>> >>> David: Even if they came from the CG they did sign a CLA. The >>> >>> only issue would be if they >>> >>> ... contributed someone else's IPR and that's a door I don't >>> >>> know how to close. There's nothing >>> >>> ... that's giving me any anxiety. >>> >>> >>> >>> Pierre: So the next step is to create a CR branch for the group >>> >>> to review the final version. >>> >>> ... When will that be available? >>> >>> >>> >>> David: You'd like a formal branch in GitHub? >>> >>> >>> >>> Pierre: Normally that's what happens, so there's a formal >>> >>> document to review. >>> >>> ... I'm encouraging you to do this as soon as possible so there >>> >>> aren't any surprises? >>> >>> >>> >>> David: I'll see what we can do - is there anyone on the team >>> >>> who can help? >>> >>> >>> >>> Thierry: I can help on the SOTD of course. >>> >>> >>> >>> Pierre: I don't have any a priori objections, thank you for >>> >>> doing all this additional work. >>> >>> >>> >>> Nigel: I'd second Pierre's request, let's have the actual >>> >>> document that we are going to approve on the table. >>> >>> >>> >>> Thierry: It has to be a CR version for approval by the >>> >>> Director. >>> >>> >>> >>> Pierre: And to be clear, on the open issues you do not expect >>> >>> any formal objections? >>> >>> >>> >>> David: I'm not seeing any clouds on the horizon for the >>> >>> remaining issues. >>> >>> >>> >>> Nigel: Me neither. >>> >>> ... David, you've been clear that you have limited resource for >>> >>> chairing and editing. Will there >>> >>> ... be the effort available to make any changes and to work on >>> >>> it post-CR so that it can get >>> >>> ... to Rec? My concern is that it could linger in CR forever. >>> >>> >>> >>> <dsinger> PROPOSAL: The editor and the team to prepare the CR. >>> >>> The WG approves the CR transition, with said prepared CR to be >>> >>> presented to the Director for approval, using the transition >>> >>> request in >>> >>> [21]https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tt/2018Mar/0133 >>> >>> .html >>> >>> >>> >>> [21] >>> >>> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tt/2018Mar/0133.html >>> >>> >>> >>> David: I share your antipathy to specs staying in CR >>> >>> indefinitely, I would suggest that if >>> >>> ... we cannot get to Rec within the next Charter period then at >>> >>> that point we publish the >>> >>> ... spec as a Note and stop working on it in the WG. >>> >>> >>> >>> Nigel: Thank you, by time-boxing the CR that addresses my >>> >>> concern. >>> >>> >>> >>> Pierre: I think you can confidently create a CR ready spec and >>> >>> state a resolution to proceed >>> >>> ... with CR with this draft, intended to be the CR. >>> >>> ... Then there's no surprise. Otherwise we could take a >>> >>> resolution today, and in 2 weeks there's >>> >>> ... something objectionable to someone and then we restart the >>> >>> clock in 2 weeks. >>> >>> >>> >>> David: I was expecting the group to approve transition today. >>> >>> Thierry, can you prepare the >>> >>> ... CR version of the document today? >>> >>> >>> >>> <dsinger> Can Thierry do the pull request for the SOTD section >>> >>> in the next 24 hours? >>> >>> >>> >>> Thierry: I can work on it, and probably not in the next 2 >>> >>> hours, but tomorrow morning. >>> >>> ... We also need in the SOTD the date for earliest advancement >>> >>> beyond CR. Probably we can >>> >>> ... put 3 months or whatever. >>> >>> >>> >>> Nigel: Good point. >>> >>> >>> >>> Thierry: I propose at least 2 months. >>> >>> >>> >>> David: It's not going to happen for at least 6 months. We need >>> >>> implementations of the changes >>> >>> ... and of regions. Give it 6 months. >>> >>> >>> >>> Thierry: You don't need to do that, you can do it in 3 if those >>> >>> criteria are met. >>> >>> >>> >>> David: Okay, put 3 months then, that's fine. >>> >>> >>> >>> Philippe: Hello, I apologise for arriving late. >>> >>> ... I don't mean to derail this meeting, but I have one >>> >>> question. We have not started review >>> >>> ... of the TTWG charter already, but I have one question: How >>> >>> is WebVTT used on the web >>> >>> ... today? Not an implementation question, a usage question. Is >>> >>> it actually used on the web, >>> >>> ... or only as an input format so video services can do their >>> >>> own thing with captions. >>> >>> ... TTML is used as an input format, and then there's client >>> >>> side JS that takes that and displays >>> >>> ... the subtitles and captions at the right time. YouTube, >>> >>> Netflix and others don't use TTML or WebVTT, >>> >>> ... they use their own code to present the captions. >>> >>> ... So you don't need native implementation of captions. >>> >>> ... The second question is how are we going to be able to get >>> >>> out of CR for WebVTT? >>> >>> ... If my assumption is correct, there is no incentive for >>> >>> browser implementers to update >>> >>> ... their implementations. That's part of the questions that we >>> >>> are asking ourselves generally >>> >>> ... about the future of captions on the web. >>> >>> >>> >>> David: I agree a lot of captions are done with polyfills and >>> >>> HTML/CSS created on the fly. >>> >>> ... One of the issues with WebVTT is that it is not used for >>> >>> presentation. >>> >>> ... I do know that in [apple products] we take the WebVTT >>> >>> natively. [sorry, scribe subject to a lot of local background >>> >>> noise] >>> >>> >>> >>> Philippe: Ok, I didn't find any statistics, for example in >>> >>> Chrome, of how often the native >>> >>> ... implementations are used today. >>> >>> >>> >>> David: Okay, I'll try to find out. >>> >>> >>> >>> Philippe: The fear is that it is not used so we will never get >>> >>> to the top of the priority list for browsers. >>> >>> >>> >>> David: I share your concern, if you can do an adequate job with >>> >>> polyfills then who needs to >>> >>> ... do a native implementation. >>> >>> >>> >>> Philippe: Yes, that doesn't undermine it as an input format. >>> >>> ... For example I do not know if the WebVTT implementation >>> >>> natively would allow positioning >>> >>> ... of captions on the fly like YouTube allows. >>> >>> ... We may be chasing something that the market out there is >>> >>> not interested in having in terms >>> >>> ... of native implementation. >>> >>> >>> >>> David: Right. Yes. >>> >>> >>> >>> Nigel: In terms of resolutions, I think the next steps are to >>> >>> produce the CR version of the >>> >>> ... document and then for David as Chair to send a message to >>> >>> the group specifying the >>> >>> ... resolution that he believes has been made, and highlighting >>> >>> the review period under the >>> >>> ... group charter decision policy (which is 10 working days). >>> >>> >>> >>> Philippe: At the moment we could try to run the transition >>> >>> request in parallel as long as it >>> >>> ... is clear to the Director that there is an opportunity for >>> >>> the decision to be reversed. >>> >>> ... On the IPR question, if there's a question about CG/WG >>> >>> working, here it is the same >>> >>> ... as if a contribution comes in on the WG public mailing >>> >>> list, where we have to figure out >>> >>> ... how substantive the contribution is and address that. It >>> >>> doesn't change the risk >>> >>> ... associated with IPR in the spec that is not directly from a >>> >>> contributor. If you have concerns >>> >>> ... about that then we can engage with our legal team here and >>> >>> make an assessment. >>> >>> ... If you tell us that everyone who contributed is in the CG >>> >>> and the WG then we don't have >>> >>> ... an issue. >>> >>> >>> >>> TTWG Charter >>> >>> >>> >>> Philippe: A comment - the agreement you described before is >>> >>> that if you do not have Rec >>> >>> ... of WebVTT by the end of the next Charter then you would >>> >>> drop it. If the theory is correct >>> >>> ... that WebVTT is used as an input format rather than a native >>> >>> implementation then it would >>> >>> ... be no surprise if that happens. >>> >>> >>> >>> David: One question is if you would accept two implementations >>> >>> from Apple as being >>> >>> ... independent, because this is in fact the case. >>> >>> >>> >>> Philippe: Interesting question, I don't know the answer but I >>> >>> can ask and get back to you. >>> >>> >>> >>> Nigel: I have asked this recently, as an issue on the Process. >>> >>> >>> >>> Philippe: Yes, you would need to have some evidence that the >>> >>> two teams creating the implementations >>> >>> ... did so by interpreting the specification directly without >>> >>> any other communication. >>> >>> >>> >>> Nigel: Any other questions or comments on the Charter? >>> >>> >>> >>> Philippe: Not as far as I know. Thank you by the way for >>> >>> providing the draft Charter. >>> >>> >>> >>> Travis >>> >>> >>> >>> Philippe: I'm in communication with Travis to try to make the >>> >>> pull request smoother. >>> >>> ... I do not know why the repositories have been deactivated. >>> >>> We are reaching peaks of 60 concurrent >>> >>> ... jobs on travis at the moment and it keeps increasing. They >>> >>> are doing some of our jobs >>> >>> ... in batches and they can get delayed before they are even >>> >>> started. So there's both a delay >>> >>> ... and then a long queue before they run. So the plan is to >>> >>> conduct an experiment on travis >>> >>> ... to give them a bit of money to provide small guarantees and >>> >>> see how it affects our jobs >>> >>> ... being run. In parallel I've been talking to the web >>> >>> platform tests people because they are >>> >>> ... consuming more than half our jobs, just for testing >>> >>> purposes, and we cannot separate >>> >>> ... them because they are on the same organisation on GitHub. >>> >>> We're potentially considering >>> >>> ... moving them to a "separate" organisation on GitHub because >>> >>> that project is going to >>> >>> ... grow more and more. Then we can separate testing from >>> >>> production of recommendations >>> >>> ... more easily. Every time a pull request on WPT is done it >>> >>> triggers 12 concurrent jobs. >>> >>> >>> >>> Nigel: Thanks for that. >>> >>> >>> >>> Audio Profile of TTML2 >>> >>> >>> >>> Nigel: I've been in discussion with various organisations >>> >>> (we're up to 12 right now) about >>> >>> ... setting up a CG to produce a profile of TTML2 for audio >>> >>> description, and hope that will >>> >>> ... go ahead in the next few weeks. >>> >>> ... Just noting it here in case people want to join. >>> >>> >>> >>> Pierre: That's in a CG not the WG? >>> >>> >>> >>> Nigel: Yes, and hopefully bring it to a future iteration of the >>> >>> TTWG Charter when there is >>> >>> ... a document to work on. This is partly about WG mechanics - >>> >>> getting onto the Charter >>> >>> ... without a document as the basis of a specification seems >>> >>> harder these days, so this way >>> >>> ... we can have easy participation from the interested parties >>> >>> and then there's a path towards >>> >>> ... getting to Rec later, albeit one that requires more W3C >>> >>> membership in the case that the >>> >>> ... contributors are not currently members. >>> >>> >>> >>> Pierre: And the domain is all applications? >>> >>> >>> >>> Nigel: Yes, not only broadcast, also web, and not making any >>> >>> assumptions about where in >>> >>> ... the distribution chain any audio mixing might happen. >>> >>> >>> >>> Pierre: Thanks. >>> >>> >>> >>> David: What I did with WebVTT is I got a FSA signed by the CG >>> >>> participants - if you're >>> >>> ... expecting them to give IPR away for free then they don't >>> >>> get anything back. >>> >>> >>> >>> Nigel: Right, and I've highlighted this to the participants >>> >>> right from the beginning. >>> >>> >>> >>> David: It took me months to get this for WebVTT. >>> >>> >>> >>> Pierre: Yes, when the legal team looks at it things could take >>> >>> longer. >>> >>> >>> >>> Meeting Close >>> >>> >>> >>> Nigel: Thanks everyone! [adjourns meeting] >>> >>> >>> >>> Summary of Action Items >>> >>> >>> >>> Summary of Resolutions >>> >>> >>> >>> [End of minutes] >>> >>> __________________________________________________________ >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Minutes formatted by David Booth's [22]scribe.perl version >>> >>> 1.152 ([23]CVS log) >>> >>> $Date: 2018/03/29 16:23:30 $ >>> >>> >>> >>> [22] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/ >>> scribedoc.htm >>> >>> [23] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/ >>> >>> >>> > >>> >> >>
Received on Monday, 2 April 2018 20:52:37 UTC