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

Re: F2f agenda

From: David Singer <singer@apple.com>
Date: Fri, 05 Jan 2018 09:38:05 -0800
Cc: Silvia Pfieffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>, Nigel Megitt <nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk>, "public-tt@w3.org" <public-tt@w3.org>, Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>
Message-id: <22A7BF28-D088-470D-AA74-A5CD7919FB5D@apple.com>
To: Pierre-Anthony Lemieux <pal@sandflow.com>
Hi Pierre

you’re a step ahead of me, so thanks.

1) The process requires:
	• must show that the specification has met all Working Group requirements, or explain why the requirements have changed or been deferred,
	• must document changes to dependencies during the development of the specification,
	• must document how adequate implementation experience will be demonstrated,
	• must specify the deadline for comments, which must be at least 28 days after publication, and should be longer for complex documents,
	• must show that the specification has received wide review, and
	• may identify features in the document as "at risk". These features may be removed before advancement to Proposed Recommendation without a requirement to publish a new Candidate Recommendation.

The WG requirements were to publish VTT as a Rec., so that it got the scrutiny of the W3C community (wide review etc.), the testing and so on, so bullet #1 is sort of a tautology.

I do not believe that there are changes to dependencies.

The Wiki <https://www.w3.org/wiki/TimedText/EffortsAndSpecifications> is an open page where we document implementations, and experience is reflected in the BugZilla and GitHub issues filed.

I expect the WG to set the deadline for comments.

The VTT wide review page documents the two rounds of Wide review <https://www.w3.org/wiki/TimedText/WebVTT_Wide_Review>.

The features at risk. Again, I expect WG input on this, but I would consider:
* the pre-defined color classes have only just been inserted into the spec, but they are important, as Andreas notes, for some use cases
* I am not sure if there are adequate implementations yet for STYLE blocks, but they are an important feature for some authors and use cases
* there is some concern over Regions, but they are implemented in two independent implementations at Apple (though not quite conforming to the latest revision of the spec.)

accordingly, I would suggest that the document not proceed beyond CR unless these are implemented, and that therefore there are no features ‘at risk’ of removal in a PR and Rec.

2) Philippe asked for

- a Working Group decision to move the document to CR (could be in teleconf minutes, email, github, etc.)
- issues remains to be tagged https://github.com/w3c/webvtt/issues #413, #406, #393, #392, #391
- the list of issues that should be highlighted to the Director, if any
- the estimated minimum duration of the CR phase (>= 1 month)
- the CR exit criteria, eg "2 implementations for each required and optional features"
- some rough assessment of the test suite status
- some rough assessment of the current state of implementation in comparison to those exit criteria

Obviously, I would like to take this opportunity to deal with the first. To my mind, VTT has long been past the quality and adoption level we usually expect at CR (CR is formally ‘asking’ for implementations).

The issues are in hand, with resolutions found or the way ahead identified (pending commenter feedback).

I expect the WG to set the deadline for comments.

The CR exit criteria should, I think, be the usual, but we need to be careful, as we are with TTML. The test suite is based on WebPlatformTests and so assumes a full browser context. Just like with TTML, many implementations are stanbd-alone (e.g., Apple CoreMedia) or polyfill-based. We need to be clear that demonstrating implementation needs to allow for demonstrations not using WPT.

The test suite is in good shape, modulo the general WPT issue above; we paid a contractor (Silvia’s son) to enhance it recently, and at TPAC, I explicitly asked around what people thought, and got positive feedback (indeed, Simon said that he thought Ben had done a much better job than expected, or what we deserved for what we paid!).

The rough assessment of the implementations is that a number of the changes (mostly minor) to the spec. during the review it’s had have not yet been reflected in implementations, and that the features I note above in the ‘at risk’ discussion need implementation before we can exit CR.

3) You ask for:

- documentation of substantive changes
- how adequate implementation experience will be demonstrated
- list of organizations that should be informed of the transition

I’m not sure when you want substantive changes since, but the ones that come to mind are STYLE blocks, the pre-defined colors, and the tighter definition of conformance classes.

See above for the discussion of implementation.

The organizations that should be informed should be formed by a union of nominations from the WG, but I would include MPEG, CTA (Wave), DASH-IF, at the minimum.

Thanks again, see you next week

> On Jan 4, 2018, at 21:22 , Pierre-Anthony Lemieux <pal@sandflow.com> wrote:
> Hi Silvia,
> Got it. So, no formal objections and/or unresolved wide-review
> comments as far you know?
> I could not find the following information at either [1] or the wiki
> page. Should I look somewhere else?
> - documentation of substantive changes
> - how adequate implementation experience will be demonstrated
> - list of organizations that should be informed of the transition
> Best,
> -- Pierre
> On Thu, Jan 4, 2018 at 8:41 PM, Silvia Pfeiffer
> <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hi Pierre,
>> I will leave the details to David, but it's all available at
>> https://www.w3.org/wiki/TimedText/WebVTT_Wide_Review .
>> Kind Regards,
>> Silvia.
>> On Fri, Jan 5, 2018 at 4:23 AM, Pierre-Anthony Lemieux <pal@sandflow.com> wrote:
>>> Hi Silvia,
>>> Thanks. Can you provide, in preparation for the meeting, documentation
>>> showing that all requirements for advancement [1] have been satisfied?
>>> [1] https://www.w3.org/2017/Process-20170301/#candidate-rec
>>> Things that come to mind include:
>>> - formal objections
>>> - record of disposition of wide-review comments
>>> - documentation of substantive changes
>>> - how adequate implementation experience will be demonstrated
>>> - list of organizations that should be informed of the transition
>>> Since WebVTT is not regularly discussed during TTWG telecons, I am
>>> trying to prevent surprises during the meeting -- we have already very
>>> little time to cover TTML1, TTML2 and IMSC1.1.
>>> Thanks,
>>> -- Pierre
>>> On Thu, Jan 4, 2018 at 8:07 PM, Silvia Pfeiffer
>>> <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> FAIK we just need TTWG approval to make that transition.
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> Silvia.
>>>> On Thu, Jan 4, 2018 at 6:53 PM, Pierre-Anthony Lemieux <pal@sandflow.com> wrote:
>>>>>> VTT CR transition
>>>>> What is the specific action(s) requested of TTWG and its members?
>>>>> Best,
>>>>> -- Pierre
>>>>> On Thu, Jan 4, 2018 at 10:49 AM, Nigel Megitt <nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>> For those not watching the wiki page
>>>>>> https://www.w3.org/wiki/TimedText/jan2018f2f there’s a new agenda topic
>>>>>> recently added by David Singer, covering VTT transition to CR.
>>>>>> Nigel
>>>>>> ----------------------------
>>>>>> http://www.bbc.co.uk
>>>>>> This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and may contain personal
>>>>>> views which are not the views of the BBC unless specifically stated.
>>>>>> If you have received it in error, please delete it from your system.
>>>>>> Do not use, copy or disclose the information in any way nor act in reliance
>>>>>> on it and notify the sender immediately.
>>>>>> Please note that the BBC monitors e-mails sent or received.
>>>>>> Further communication will signify your consent to this.
>>>>>> ---------------------

David Singer
Manager, Software Standards, Apple Inc.
Received on Friday, 5 January 2018 17:38:54 UTC

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