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

{minutes} TTWG Meeting 2018-03-15

From: Nigel Megitt <nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2018 15:42:40 +0000
To: TTWG <public-tt@w3.org>
Message-ID: <D6D044B1.57837%nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk>
Thanks to all those who attended today's TTWG meeting. Minutes can be found in HTML format at https://www.w3.org/2018/03/15-tt-minutes.html

In text format:


      [1] http://www.w3.org/

                Timed Text Working Group Teleconference

15 Mar 2018

   See also: [2]IRC log

      [2] https://www.w3.org/2018/03/15-tt-irc


          Nigel, Andreas, Glenn

          Pierre, Cyril




     * [3]Topics
         1. [4]This meeting
         2. [5]TTML1 CR
         3. [6]TTML2 Actions
         4. [7]TTML2 Add CR1 upload package ttml2#696 (pull
         5. [8]TTML2 Implementation report
         6. [9]Meeting close
     * [10]Summary of Action Items
     * [11]Summary of Resolutions

   <scribe> scribe: nigel

This meeting

   Nigel: Let's do what we can today given the unusually low
   ... We have very little on the agenda today, just the following
   that I'm aware of:
   ... TTML1 3rd Ed CR transition request
   ... The two open actions on tracker for TTML2.
   ... Anything else?

   Glenn: I'd like to look at ttml2#696


   Nigel: Referring back to the resolution we made 2 weeks ago, to
   request transition of
   ... TTML1 to CR after merging the open pull requests, the
   review period ends now, so the
   ... decision is final, and I will go ahead and make the
   transition request based on the
   ... version on the TTML1-3ED-CR1 branch, viewable at
   ... In the absence of Thierry right now, I'll do that after the

     [12] https://rawgit.com/w3c/ttml1/TTML1-3ED-CR1-build/index.html

TTML2 Actions


   <trackbot> Action-443 -- Glenn Adams to Prepare a document
   showing mapping arib ruby extension features to ttml2 for use
   as a liaison document to arib. -- due 2016-08-26 -- OPEN


     [13] http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/tracker/actions/443

   Glenn: I still don't think it would be a bad idea to do that, I
   just don't have the wherewithal
   ... to do it, so we could either close it and defer it for the
   future or assign it to someone else.
   ... It may be that as TTML2 gets closer to Rec I might have
   time to do it, but in terms of
   ... communicating the work that we've done to communicate the
   work we've done to support
   ... Japanese to ARIB would be the proper thing to do.

   Nigel: It would be timely to do this now since we are in CR and
   interested in implementation
   ... work, and ARIB members are possible implementers.

   Glenn: OK, leave it with me.

   ACTION-443: WG reviewed this and will attempt to satisfy it
   during CR1

   <trackbot> Notes added to ACTION-443 Prepare a document showing
   mapping arib ruby extension features to ttml2 for use as a
   liaison document to arib..

   Nigel: I've updated the due date to end of April.


   <trackbot> Action-462 -- Glenn Adams to Create issue on ttml2
   to add "mapping from other versions and profiles of ttml" --
   due 2016-04-28 -- OPEN


     [14] http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/tracker/actions/462

   Nigel: The question in my mind here is: has this been overtaken
   by events?

   Glenn: I think putting this kind of information is putting the
   cart before the horse. The
   ... mapping of profiles should be put into updates to the
   ... We have listed substantive changes since TTML1 already.

   Nigel: What about mapping to make a TTML2 document instance
   from a TTML1 document instance?

   Glenn: That's easy, it's a no-op.

   Nigel: Because we haven't prohibited anything from TTML1,

   Glenn: Yes, we've deprecated a few things, that's about it.
   ... If we obsolete anything then we should do something here.

   Nigel: Looking back on the minutes from when we originally
   raised this action, there was
   ... a query about mapping from smpte:backgroundImage to the
   TTML2 image element.
   ... In fact that is already noted in TTML2 and more detail is
   in IMSC 1.1. So I think there is
   ... no remaining action needed here.

   Glenn: For me the potential action would be for SMPTE to update
   their spec to refer to
   ... IMSC 1.1 or paraphrase it. Not for TTML to go back and
   reference SMPTE-TT.

   ACTION-462: Discussed in WG meeting today, overtaken by events
   and no longer needed.

   <trackbot> Notes added to ACTION-462 Create issue on ttml2 to
   add "mapping from other versions and profiles of ttml".

   close action-462

   <trackbot> Closed action-462.

TTML2 Add CR1 upload package ttml2#696 (pull request)

   Glenn: After this is merged I'm willing to create a release
   task, and make a release containing
   ... the artefacts, pointing to gh-pages. I still want to upload
   the tar file, which is consistent
   ... with what we did in the past in both TTML2 and TTML1. I
   haven't looked at gh-pages to
   ... see if there are other files.

   Nigel: This is a technical point - we could achieve the same
   goal by tagging the gh-pages branch with a release.

   Glenn: I'm suggesting merging this pull request and then I can
   also add a release based on
   ... the gh-pages branch.

   Nigel: Ok, I'll approve.

   Glenn: Thank you, I'll go ahead and create an artefacts release
   when the build has completed.

TTML2 Implementation report

   Glenn: Since one was necessary to put into the CR SOTD I
   created a template as a starting point

   [15]TTML2 Implementation Report

     [15] https://www.w3.org/wiki/TTML/TTML2ImplementationReport

   Glenn: I've added the new features and have started putting the
   implementations in.
   ... I expect the entries to change as I verify each one over
   the next month.
   ... I'm also discussing this with Netflix and they will be
   adding their entries as well to new
   ... columns, so I'll coordinate with Cyril on that.

   Nigel: I'll add what we have especially for the audio features
   from BBC.
   ... I think I'll ask Thierry to style this to look more like
   what an implementation report
   ... normally looks like.

   Glenn: I'd like to discuss it before we do that.

   Nigel: For an example of another one, see
   ... We can't really claim anything in the implementation report
   until we have tests.

     [16] https://www.w3.org/wiki/TimedText/IMSC1_0_1_Implementation_Report

   Glenn: I don't think so, we used the features as a list and
   solicited input from implementers
   ... on whether they implemented it or not. We did not tie
   specific tests to specific features,
   ... at least during that process.


     [17] https://www.w3.org/2006/DFXP/DFXP-implementation-result.html

   [18]TTML 1.0 Test results

     [18] https://www.w3.org/2009/05/dfxp-results.html

   Nigel: That link above is what you get to when you click on
   Implementation Report in the
   ... SOTD from TTML1 first edition PR

     [19] https://www.w3.org/TR/2010/PR-ttaf1-dfxp-20100914/

   Glenn: I don't recall the discussion of this in the group at
   the time. I think we threw it over
   ... to Thierry to create whatever documents were needed to meet
   the Process.

   Nigel: I've not seen any W3C CRs whose implementation reports
   did not refer to tests.

   Glenn: We will be making a lot of tests available. We use
   features to identify implementable
   ... support so we need to tie the features to tests as you

   Nigel: One feature to one or more tests, yes.

   Glenn: Either we can integrate those into the same table, for
   example with tests corresponding
   ... to each feature. I'm concerned about the need to correlate
   tests to feature designations.

   Nigel: I agree that we would need to do that.

   Glenn: As long as we can do that, I'm happy with that. The
   current proposed table does
   ... not include that information so we need to add it somehow.

   Nigel: I agree.

   Glenn: One way would be to have a second table that maps
   features to tests, and then we
   ... could also have pass/fail type entries for the
   implementations in there. Then the feature
   ... based one would be a summary of the test one.

   Nigel: Seems too complex to me. They can just go in one table.

   [20]IMSC 1 Implementation Report

     [20] https://www.w3.org/wiki/TimedText/IMSC1_Implementation_Report

   Nigel: The IMSC 1 one does that to some extent, though again
   like the TTML1 implementation report,
   ... it does not explicitly list the feature designators.
   ... It does include heading rows linking back to a part of the

   Glenn: What I want to get back to is a claim by the implementor
   that specific features are
   ... supported.
   ... This IMSC 1 table doesn't map the tests to features so you
   might hypothetically pass the test
   ... but not fully support a feature, and then abort processing
   as a result.
   ... In the TTV test suite I have a test called
   ttml2-valid-all-styles that has every style that is
   ... defined in TTML2 that is new. If I were to list that in a
   table like that here, then it would
   ... map to 20-30 features.

   Nigel: Agreed, it isn't useful in this context, though it may
   be useful in its own right.
   ... You might need to split it up into one style per feature.

   Glenn: Making a judgement about which features are needed for
   each test might be tricky.

   Nigel: Agreed, each test is dependent on a number of features.
   ... If you had a single test that checks for support for all
   the mandatory features, that could
   ... be a good basis to begin with.

   Andreas: It could be overkill to list all the features for
   every test. If a test were to fail, how
   ... would you discover exactly which feature was not supported
   properly. There's an endless
   ... list of features that are depended on - XML itself for

   Glenn: It has never been the explicit requirement that testing
   is needed to demonstrate
   ... interoperability to transition to PR - the implementation
   is there to demonstrate
   ... implementability.

   Nigel: That's true in the Process:

   [21]Transition to Proposed Rec

     [21] https://www.w3.org/2018/Process-20180201/#rec-pr

   Glenn: I would like to follow our history and demonstrate
   implementability as opposed to
   ... interoperability, but we need to have everyone on the same
   page, since you and maybe Pierre
   ... had some different views.

   Nigel: That's true. It would be crazy to attempt to test every
   possible permutation of combinations
   ... of features. Right now I'm expecting 2 tests per feature,
   one that is valid and demonstrates
   ... a useful behaviour related to the feature, and one that is
   invalid and causes a validating
   ... processor to issue an error. This is from our exit

   Glenn: I think I agree with that. We will submit three
   categories of test for adoption and use.
   ... I had asked a question to the group about where
   ESH_additions came from in TTML1

   Nigel: I don't know. What is in Mercurial too?

   Glenn: I couldn't find a record in the history from Mercurial
   to indicate where it came from.
   ... Inside the files in that directory, some were labelled W3C
   test material, others designated
   ... as copyright Microsoft. There's one that was completely
   bogus, and had microsoft labelling
   ... in it, which makes me nervous, which has a "test" on
   profile, with a features element
   ... that used a syntactic style similar to how we do
   tts:styles, with a bunch of tts attributes
   ... the value of which was broken or optional. It was broken
   compared to the actual syntax
   ... and the label on it made me worried that someone had
   actually implemented something like that.

   Nigel: Do we need to worry about it?

   Glenn: We need to remove the directory because people might
   think it is part of the TTML1
   ... test suite. I'd like you Nigel maybe to at least
   preliminarily take an action to ask if we
   ... should remove it and find out what the provenance of it is.

   Nigel: Ok I'll do that.

Meeting close

   Nigel: We're out of agenda so I'll close the meeting now. Thank
   you! [adjourns meeting]

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

   [End of minutes]

    Minutes formatted by David Booth's [22]scribe.perl version
    1.152 ([23]CVS log)
    $Date: 2018/03/15 15:41:07 $

     [22] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
     [23] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/
Received on Thursday, 15 March 2018 15:43:14 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 15 March 2018 15:43:15 UTC