- From: Nigel Megitt <nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk>
- Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2018 17:06:00 +0000
- To: Timed Text Working Group <public-tt@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <D6740DE1.51B3D%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/2018/01/04-tt-minutes.html
Our next meeting is the face to face on 9th and 10th Jan next week, so there will be no usual weekly call on Thursday 11th Jan.
In text format:
[1]W3C
[1] http://www.w3.org/
Timed Text Working Group Teleconference
04 Jan 2018
Attendees
Present
Cyril, Nigel, Pierre, Andreas, Glenn, Thierry
Regrets
Chair
Nigel
Scribe
nigel
Contents
* [2]Topics
1. [3]This meeting
2. [4]Face to Face meeting
3. [5]Clarify definition of epoch and epoch-related
offsets
4. [6]tts:overflow does not apply to the region area
TTML1#239
5. [7]Clarify meaning of percentage with writing mode
relative edge terms in tts:padding. ttml1#205
6. [8]Handling of LWSP in tts:fontFamily ttml1#248
7. [9]Chained Referential Styling spec vs example
mismatch ttml1#275
8. [10]TTML1 issue resolution
9. [11]Inconsistent implicit duration of singleton span
in sequential container. ttml1#193
10. [12]TTML2 Wide and Horizontal Review
11. [13]Charter
12. [14]Meeting close
* [15]Summary of Action Items
* [16]Summary of Resolutions
__________________________________________________________
<scribe> scribe: nigel
This meeting
Nigel: Happy New conveniently timed rotation around the Sun!
... Today we have a quick max 10 minutes schedule bash for next
week's meeting,
... then thanks Pierre for listing some specific issues and
pull requests to review. Any other
... points to cover or other business?
Andreas: Charter status
Nigel: Ok
group: [no other business]
Face to Face meeting
[17]Jan2018 F2F wiki page
[17] https://www.w3.org/wiki/TimedText/jan2018f2f
Nigel: Any timing constraints on Tuesday and Wednesday?
Otherwise we'll start at 0900,
... after arriving from 0830.
... I have to leave on the Wednesday in time for an 8pm flight
Thierry: I will try to join remotely. If you have discussion
about the Charter early in California.
Nigel: I propose to cover Charter first thing Wednesday morning
... I would like to deal with TTML2 WR comments as soon as
possible, so I propose first thing
... on Tuesday.
Andreas: I will join as long as possible and would be grateful
if we could cover the IMSC 1.1
... contentious issue about foreign namespace attributes first.
Nigel: OK - everyone else okay with that?
group: [assent]
Nigel: OK let's cover that in a time-boxed session and then
head to TTML2 WR comments
... Perhaps then the sensible thing is to cover TTML1 issues
and pull requests followed by
... TTML2 ones?
Andreas: Sorry for making another request for the schedule, but
if there are any things
... where I'm involved please could you try to handle them
earlier. I had some TTML2 WR
... comments most of them will not require my attendance.
Cyril: Please could you make a list of the issues you're
involved in Andreas?
Andreas: Yes I plan to do that.
Nigel: I will want to cover the Charter to some extent, even if
timeboxed
Andreas: I haven't seen an updated draft to review before the
meeting.
Pierre: Echo that, unless we have a document to review we
shouldn't cover Charter.
Nigel: Can we leave the remainder of IMSC 1.1 aside from the
Netflix objection to Wednesday afternoon?
Andreas: I have a strong interest and would like to cover that
topic, so not at the end of
... the day for example.
Nigel: OK that pushes it to the morning of Wednesday, but I
will timebox it so we can cover
... everything else.
... OK we've hit my time limit for this topic let's move on.
Clarify definition of epoch and epoch-related offsets
github: [18]https://github.com/w3c/ttml1/pull/302
... [19]https://github.com/w3c/ttml1/issues/266
[18] https://github.com/w3c/ttml1/pull/302
[19] https://github.com/w3c/ttml1/issues/266
Nigel: This pull request is approved by me and Andreas, Glenn
has requested a change but
... agrees that the terminology is equivalent in this
non-normative section.
... Glenn please can we go ahead with this pull request?
Glenn: I want to go on record as opposing this and will object
to it similarly if someone
... proposes it for TTML2. Changing "implementation defined" in
this one case creates an
... inconsistency because it is used in many other places and
it may not be identical in
... meaning to "document processing context". With that on
record I'll go ahead and remove
... my review.
Nigel: It's on record here.
Glenn: I'm doing this in the interests of moving forward.
Nigel: Thank you.
RESOLUTION: Merge pull request #302 as is.
tts:overflow does not apply to the region area TTML1#239
github: [20]https://github.com/w3c/ttml1/issues/239
[20] https://github.com/w3c/ttml1/issues/239
[21]Pull Request: Clarify semantics of default overflow
semantics implied by XSL-FO
[21] https://github.com/w3c/ttml1/pull/297
Glenn: The statement proposed by Andreas yesterday is factually
incorrect - we do not
... intend to make a restriction on fo:block in particular.
Pierre: Doesn't this text just say that the fo:blocks generated
by body div or p have an
... overflow property initial value of auto
Glenn: It suggests that overflow only applies to those
fo:blocks.
Pierre: That's not my reading.
Nigel: Can we not simply say "For example, ..." to make clear
that it is not an exhaustive list?
Glenn: We should not list body, div or p.
Andreas: I mentioned them specifically because they are already
listed. My objection was
... based on the observation that the current text is not
sufficient for understanding why
... we mention this overflow property at all. Glenn if you have
alternative text to propose then
... I can review it.
Glenn: I was just looking at XSL-FO and in §B.4 Properties and
the FOs they apply to, I see
... something that means we have to change this overall. The
overflow property applies to
... block container and inline container, and not fo:block, so
we will have to go back to the
... drawing board on this issue - I think I knew this once and
somehow managed to forget it.
... Right now of those FO items that are listed that overflow
applies to, I believe we only have
... block-container in TTML1 and in TTML2 we add
inline-container and external-graphic.
Andreas: I propose we should move on and Glenn if you can make
an alternative proposal
... I will review it.
Glenn: OK
... I'm glad we looked at this.
SUMMARY: @skynavga to look again at this and the FO items that
overflow applies to.
Clarify meaning of percentage with writing mode relative edge terms
in tts:padding. ttml1#205
github: [22]https://github.com/w3c/ttml1/issues/205
[22] https://github.com/w3c/ttml1/issues/205
[23]Clarify percentage units in padding specification pull
request #281
[23] https://github.com/w3c/ttml1/pull/281
Glenn: Rather than parentheticals, if we are going to do this
then I would prefer to do it
... as separate sentences rather than inline.
Pierre: Let's edit this now. I have it in front of me and can
edit in real time.
... I will also fix the typo that Nigel spotted earlier.
Glenn: [looks at it]. Go ahead with it.
Pierre: I'm fixing "conversly".
... (and that's pushed)
RESOLUTION: Group happy to merge 3629b41
... when the build is complete
Handling of LWSP in tts:fontFamily ttml1#248
github: [24]https://github.com/w3c/ttml1/issues/248
[24] https://github.com/w3c/ttml1/issues/248
[25]State that LWSPs are permitted in tts:fontFamily Pull
Request #290
[25] https://github.com/w3c/ttml1/pull/290
Pierre: Based on the result of the long conversation and survey
I implemented the preferred
... view. Glenn has objected to it.
Glenn: There's new information - there is no known
implementation that is affected.
... Ignoring the process issues, I have no problem with the
disrecommendation but the
... rationale is lame, and we should not add rationales in at
all - certainly not in this note.
... If someone could point out an implementation then I would
change my opinion.
Pierre: The proposed text was on the issue and you approved it
back then Glenn.
Glenn: That's irrelevant.
Cyril: I agree with Glenn that the rationale part is not
helpful.
Andreas: I disagree with both of you. It is incomplete if you
do not explain why the recommendation
... is present.
Pierre: From a process perspective we have to move forward with
the resolution we agreed.
Glenn: What was added in the pull request is not what was in
the issue.
Pierre: That is a good point, I don't know why I used the
phrase "maximal compatibility".
Glenn: I might accept a new sentence saying something about
existing processors.
Pierre: I can edit this here and now while we have everyone who
cares about it.
... [edits with input from the group]
... [pushes updated text]
Glenn: I approved this.
Andreas: I already approved too.
Pierre: Thank you so much, apologies for the confusion.
RESOLUTION: Group approves merge of this pull request as at
186591d
Chained Referential Styling spec vs example mismatch ttml1#275
github: [26]https://github.com/w3c/ttml1/issues/275
[26] https://github.com/w3c/ttml1/issues/275
Glenn: I relented a bit and agreed to remove that second
paragraph that causes confusion.
... I decided that trying to reword it would be too
complicated. I proposed some text under
... the example to explain the result.
Nigel: I could accept that but would like a statement to
explain that when chained referential
... styling is used then each style is resolved in itself
before being referenced.
Glenn: The algorithm is already specified in 8.4.4.2 and I
think writing that weak paraphrase would be too difficult.
Andreas: I agree and also refer to Cyril's comment that trying
to rewrite this will take too
... long and is not needed.
cyril: I agree with Glenn and Andreas. I am fine with removing
the misleading paragraph
... and adding a note. I would like to note that we have
similar sentences to the second
... paragraph in 8.4.1.1 and 8.4.1.2 and 8.4.1.4. The second
paragraph is always rephrasing
... the algorithm. It would be strange to remove it here and
not there.
Glenn: There's no issue on those though, so we shouldn't do
that.
Andreas: Can we agree with Glenn's proposal and open another
issue?
Nigel: There's already work to be done on this pull request so
I would like to ask for a day
... to propose a useful sentence that I think is not
contentious.
Pierre: I'm kindly asking the Chair to allow us to move forward
leaving the door open to
... add further clarification in additional issues.
Nigel: By the way I already made a proposal and nobody
commented on it. Perhaps we can use that.
group: [universal dislike of the proposal from 15 days ago]
Pierre: I've just pushed a change to make Glenn's change.
Nigel: Just to be clear, I think that this change alone is fine
but insufficient to resolve the
... issue to my satisfaction.
RESOLUTION: Merge pull request as edited in this meeting; Nigel
to open new issue for remaining part.
TTML1 issue resolution
Cyril: Looking at the TTML1 issues open for 3rd Edition
Milestone, removing test suite,
... we have 17 issues open and out of those 6 have pending open
pull requests and 11 have
... none. How will we progress on those 11?
Pierre: As an Editor, 2 are purely editorial - errata and
stylesheets, so they will be dealt with
... at the last possible second.
... #193 and #251 need group discussion prior to generating a
PR.
... Possibly we can close #193 without any change.
... A couple depend on input from Glenn, #228 and #212. Unless
Glenn can spare some time
... I think we'll need to fix them later.
... #311 and #310 are extremely recent and I haven't been able
to get to them. There's a
... discussion on #310 ongoing.
... I think that covers them.
Cyril: Thank you for that.
Pierre: After this call today I will generate a formal list for
consideration next week in the
... face to face. There will be half a dozen at most if not
fewer.
Inconsistent implicit duration of singleton span in sequential
container. ttml1#193
github: [27]https://github.com/w3c/ttml1/issues/193
[27] https://github.com/w3c/ttml1/issues/193
Nigel: It seems like the consensus is moving towards "works for
me" with Glenn suggesting
... a note.
Pierre: Unless someone has a strong different opinion the next
step will be for me to
... open a pull request with that note in it?
group: [no objection]
Pierre: Glenn, did you mean for an example or just a note?
... I think the text is already there, but the result is
probably what we need.
Glenn: An example would be more complete, you're right. I did
not go as far as suggesting that.
Nigel: What is the extra surprise compared to the existing spec
text?
Glenn: There's a similar surprise explained in SMIL 2.1 for
definite media.
Pierre: I'm happy to close as is or also to add a note.
Nigel: I think the surprise is that an anonymous span behaves
differently in timing than
... an explicit span, in these conditions.
Glenn: That's right, that's the surprise.
Pierre: I'm happy to add a simple example showing that.
... There's evidently also a bug with the TTML test suite here.
group: [no objections]
SUMMARY: @palemieux to craft a pull request with an example and
explanation of the surprise.
TTML2 Wide and Horizontal Review
action-508?
Thierry: That's done.
close action-508
Nigel: I will manually close that as trackbot isn't responding
right now.
Thierry: I will do that.
Nigel: Thank you.
... Thierry are you happy that the WR comments on TTML2 are
labelled in the repository?
Thierry: I'm not sure all of them are in case others have been
added. I will double check them.
Nigel: Thank you - that will be useful for next week's meeting.
Charter
Thierry: I drafted something a long time ago after TPAC and
sent a link.
[28]Draft charter
[28] https://w3c.github.io/charter-timed-text/
Thierry: I agree you should spend more time next week on
technical things and review
... and finalise the Charter during the regular calls.
Nigel: Thank you, David and I particularly have to work on it.
Thierry: What needs to be finalised is what goes in the
reference draft that will be used,
... for the new process for charters.
Nigel: [confusion]
Thierry: I will send you documentation.
Nigel: Thank you!
Meeting close
Nigel: Thanks everyone. See those of you who will be there in
California on Tuesday morning. [adjourns meeting]
Summary of Action Items
Summary of Resolutions
1. [29]Merge pull request #302 as is.
2. [30]Group happy to merge 3629b41
3. [31]Group approves merge of this pull request as at 186591d
4. [32]Merge pull request as edited in this meeting; Nigel to
open new issue for remaining part.
[End of minutes]
__________________________________________________________
Minutes formatted by David Booth's [33]scribe.perl version
1.152 ([34]CVS log)
$Date: 2018/01/04 17:04:16 $
[33] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
[34] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/
Received on Thursday, 4 January 2018 17:06:32 UTC