W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-tt@w3.org > January 2018

{minutes} TTWG Meeting 2018-01-04

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] http://www.w3.org/

                Timed Text Working Group Teleconference

04 Jan 2018


          Cyril, Nigel, Pierre, Andreas, Glenn, Thierry




     * [2]Topics
         1. [3]This meeting
         2. [4]Face to Face meeting
         3. [5]Clarify definition of epoch and epoch-related
         4. [6]tts:overflow does not apply to the region area
         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

   Andreas: I haven't seen an updated draft to review before the

   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

   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 žB.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

   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

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 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 and and 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

   Andreas: Can we agree with Glenn's proposal and open another

   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

   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
   ... 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

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

   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


   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.


   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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:44:29 UTC