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

Re: F2f agenda

From: Pierre-Anthony Lemieux <pal@sandflow.com>
Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2018 12:21:18 -0800
Message-ID: <CAF_7JxBs_GOZnyhH82GJD7jzOgjbJ+e+R1Mv_dQ8jkHak9YbAQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: David Singer <singer@apple.com>
Cc: Nigel Megitt <nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk>, Silvia Pfieffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>, "public-tt@w3.org" <public-tt@w3.org>
Hi David,

> Hi, that’s what I thought I detailed in the previous email.

In the past, substantive changes had to be provided as an attachment
to the specification. See [1] for instance.

[1] https://www.w3.org/TR/ttml-imsc1.0.1/substantive-changes-summary.txt

>  don’t think any other change raises to the level of ‘substantive’, they were clarifications.

Even clarifications can be considered substantive per the W3C process [1].

[2] https://www.w3.org/2017/Process-20170301/#substantive-change

> I thought that was also in the previous email. Implementation experience is documented by the Wiki, where we track implementations and their status.

Will 2 implementations for every feature be required, as with other
TTWG specifications, or is the WebVTT group looking for something
different? This should be reflected in the SOTD of the document.

Similarly, the SOTD should point to the implementation report.

> The features at risk.

AFAIK these need to be listed explicitly in the CR specification.

> Where am I asking for anything different?

In the past, the group considered a specification that included all
the information above (see [3] for a recent example), and where all
outstanding issues had been deferred by the group.

[3] https://www.w3.org/TR/ttml-imsc1.0.1/

Can you prepare an updated specification that matches these requirements?

Best,

-- Pierre

On Fri, Jan 5, 2018 at 12:06 PM, David Singer <singer@apple.com> wrote:
>
>
>> On Jan 5, 2018, at 11:33 , Pierre-Anthony Lemieux <pal@sandflow.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi David,
>>
>>> Just a formal decision that the CR transition should happen.
>>
>> In the past, the TTWG asked for all process requirements to be met
>> before agreeing to a transition to CR, including boring stuff like:
>>
>> - documentation of substantive changes
>
> Hi, that’s what I thought I detailed in the previous email. The previous publication is the Wide Review WD, and the substantive changes are the addition of the color classes, and the definition of the conformance classes. I don’t think any other change raises to the level of ‘substantive’, they were clarifications.
>
>> - how adequate implementation experience will be demonstrated
>
> I thought that was also in the previous email. Implementation experience is documented by the Wiki, where we track implementations and their status. It lists the ones known as of the last update, and we expect to update it in the CR period.
>
>>
>> Why would it be different this time?
>
> Where am I asking for anything different?
>
>
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> -- Pierre
>>
>> On Fri, Jan 5, 2018 at 9:49 AM, David Singer <singer@mac.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Jan 5, 2018, at 1:33 , Nigel Megitt <nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> From my perspective, I think it is extremely unlikely that we will be able
>>>> to reach conclusions on those open WebVTT issues in time to agree to
>>>> transition WebVTT to CR during next week's F2F. I will do what I can in
>>>> the time available.
>>>
>>> To be clear, I am not expecting, or asking for, technical discussion of VTT issues at the Face to Face. Just a formal decision that the CR transition should happen.
>>>
>>> I would hope that the commenters can look at the large amount of (personal, volunteer) time that Silvia has spent on this on the last couple of months, and enable us to close the issues, but I recognize that time is always a scarce resource.
>>>
>>> I think that the major issue that needed addressing before CR was Andreas’ first wide-review comment on needing come built-in colors, and his linked second one on more closely defining conformance classes, both of which we have reached assent on. Nigel’s actionable comments that remain to be reviewed by him are appreciated, and are being addressed, but I am not sure that any need to hold up a resolution to proceed to CR; we expect to address them before CR (for the most part, pull requests are ready), and indeed I would suggest that we could ease pressure on Nigel by saying that we’ll take the proposed fixes into the CR and go ahead, and he need not review and comment if time is pressing (a problem I understand, as I have been trying not be be VTT co-chair for the longest time for the exact same reason).
>>>
>>> So, to be clear, we need the formal resolution from the WG that VTT is cooked (perhaps, rather over-done) to the CR point and we should formally declare CR and ask for implementations to catch up. No discussion of detailed issues (we’d need to be sure to have Silvia and ideally Simon and Philip, and Silvia is on vacation next week). That’s why I think that 30 minutes is generous.
>>>
>>> David Singer
>>>
>>> singer@mac.com
>>>
>
> David Singer
> Manager, Software Standards, Apple Inc.
>
Received on Friday, 5 January 2018 20:22:08 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 5 January 2018 20:22:08 UTC