- 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