- From: Nigel Megitt <nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk>
- Date: Thu, 10 May 2018 15:19:04 +0000
- To: TTWG <public-tt@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <D71A1FDF.5BAD7%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/2018/05/10-tt-minutes.html
In text format:
[1]W3C
[1] http://www.w3.org/
Timed Text Working Group Teleconference
10 May 2018
See also: [2]IRC log
[2] https://www.w3.org/2018/05/10-tt-irc
Attendees
Present
Pierre, Nigel, Glenn, Philippe, Cyril
Regrets
Thierry, Andreas
Chair
Nigel
Scribe
nigel
Contents
* [3]Topics
1. [4]This Meeting
2. [5]TTWG Charter
3. [6]TTML Test repos
4. [7]TTML1 3rd Ed - to subtitle or not to subtitle?
5. [8]IMSC reference to TTML1
6. [9]TTML Test repos (revisited)
7. [10]IMSC
8. [11]WebVTT
9. [12]Meeting close
* [13]Summary of Action Items
* [14]Summary of Resolutions
__________________________________________________________
<scribe> scribe: nigel
This Meeting
Nigel: Today we have TTWG Charter, TTML test repos, not sure
what else.
Philippe: A note on IMSC
Nigel: OK, IMSC added to the agenda
... AOB or anything else to cover?
Philippe: An update on WebVTT
Nigel: OK
TTWG Charter
Nigel: I note that Philippe has opened a pull request on the
Charter to address the issues
... opened by me and Pierre, and that's gone round one review &
edit iteration, looking good right now I think.
[15]Ac review #29
[15] https://github.com/w3c/charter-timed-text/pull/29
Philippe: If there are any other requests for changes let me
know.
... The end of the review is end of next week. I don't expect
anything surprising.
... So far 11 responders, 3 abstains.
TTML Test repos
Nigel: Glenn asked for ttml1-tests and ttml2-tests, seems like
a good idea to me, but I can't make the repos.
... Any objection to creating them?
Pierre: No objection
group: [no other objection]
Philippe: We need separate repos?
Glenn: Yes
Philippe: OK
Nigel: Please could you create those Philippe?
Philippe: Yes I can do so - will do while you continue...
TTML1 3rd Ed - to subtitle or not to subtitle?
Pierre: We seem to have the right people on this call to
discuss this.
... Nigel, you summarised this pretty well in one of your
comments.
github: [16]https://github.com/w3c/ttml1/issues/352
[16] https://github.com/w3c/ttml1/issues/352
Glenn: My understanding is that we want a generic title that
does not specify edition, and is flexible?
Pierre: Yes, I think NIgel summarised this - if anyone wants a
generic undated version,
... the pointer is /TR/ttml1 which always points to the latest
version, but associated with this
... ideally there should be an unversioned title that can be
used to match the "latest" URL.
... The way this came up is it is weird to have a reference
that says "TTML1 2nd Ed" but when
... you click on it you get 3rd Ed.
Glenn: Yes, I don't have any problem doing that as long as we
don't change the title in one
... of the specific editions. For example the specification
could recommend a generic title
... for use by referencing specs. It could do that in the spec
somewhere, in the Intro or SOTD,
... for example, it could have a note that says "for the
purpose of generically referencing
... TTML1 without specifying date or edition use XYZ". That's
one way to handle it and would
... meet my concern which is it does not change the title of
the specific edition.
Pierre: My thinking was less intrusive, to use metadata so that
tools like specref can extract
... the name and know that "3rd Ed" is a version.
Philippe: You have 2 ways - you can put all the info into the
h1 or divide into h1 and h2.
... Respec can deal with it either way but specref only takes
into account the h1 - it doesn't support subtitles.
Glenn: You mean the text content of the h1 or some metadata
associated with it?
Philippe: The text content.
Glenn: That's the problem, I don't want to change the content
of h1.
Philippe: Fine, it doesn't change the fact that we are still
talking about TTML1. I'm not
... trying to recommend one or the other. It's a matter of
taste. Some people do not like to
... use versions at all. They give the choice to make the
version indication secondary, and
... we tell them that they can omit it or put it in the h2. It
doesn't matter to us.
... You can still use the version URL.
... The latest version is calculated automatically.
... We only have one copy on the server, we don't modify it
depending on how it is accessed.
... That's with or without a date in the URL.
... It's difficult to differentiate the case where the reader
wanted a dated version or a general version, on the server
side.
Glenn: And the latest version changes over time?
Philippe: Correct, those are calculated.
Glenn: From the server's perspective it just takes whatever
comes out of the filesystem.
... It doesn't sound like the metadata system would work unless
you modify respec.
Pierre: Or specref.
Glenn: Yes, specref is what I mean.
Pierre: The first step is to modify those.
Glenn: How would you change the metadata in the document?
Pierre: That's a w3c tooling choice, it should be the same
across all specs.
Philippe: I still don't understand - what is the purpose of the
metadata, to give the edition?
Glenn: What I'm hearing is a name meta element in the head with
a generic title, and specref
... if it finds that uses it instead of the h1.
Philippe: Duplicating the information in metadata is never a
good thing.
Glenn: In this case the content would be different because it
would not include the version information.
Philippe: If we push the version into the h2 and teach specref
about the h2 would be the
... better option. It knows if you are linking to the generic
latest or a specific edition. It can
... return markup differently depending on how you use it. So
it can merge the h1 and the h2
... if applicable. That's better in the long run.
Glenn: Right now h2 have the top level headings?
Philippe: That's in the body, but in the head you have h1 with
title and h2 with date etc.
... In between some folk are adding another h2 in between with
a subtitle.
Glenn: You can have an h1 inside head in HTML?
Philippe: I didn't mean the html I meant the div
class/id="head" - the one that contains the
... logo, the title, the copyright info, etc, those kind of
stuff.
Glenn: The top level div, let me see...
... there's a div class="head" I see.
... OK I see in TTML1 the title contains the 3rd Edition and
the h2 which has the Editor's Draft ...
Philippe: The proposal is to move the "3rd Edition" in to the
h2 and teach specref about that h2.
... Visually you won't see anything different because the same
text will be there but specref
... can pick the h2 or not depending on what we teach it.
Glenn: Right now there's a "W3C Editor's Draft" in the h2.
Philippe: Yes and we're proposing to add another one.
<plh> [17]https://www.w3.org/TR/pointerevents2/
[17] https://www.w3.org/TR/pointerevents2/
Philippe: For example the pointer events spec does exactly
that.
... It's called Pointer Events but if you go to the spec it
says it's level 2. The intent is to
... supersede level 1 in the future.
Glenn: I see. So it takes it out of the title, there's a new
line there, basically.
Philippe: Correct
... The effect that it has is that in specref if you put
pointerevents2 you will see that it points
... to the working draft but the title is just Pointer Events
because specref doesn't get the h2
... information from our systems.
[18]Specref for Pointer Events 2
[18] https://www.specref.org/?q=pointerevents2
Nigel: I see, the title is just from the h1 - because specref
doesn't know about the h2 yet.
Philippe: Correct.
Glenn: There's a meta issue about what should the specific
reference be from IMSC.
Nigel: That's a drift off this topic - it does need to be
covered but that's different.
Glenn: If you put a date into specref then it points you to a
specific dated version of the doc.
Pierre: That's the point, specref with a version specific URL
will include the version, but
... a generic latest link would just have the title without the
version.
Philippe: If you're talking about latest version, you need to
make sure the right title is returned.
... That could be in our backend.
Glenn: It sounds like you need changes to specref and we need
to change the title to put the edition into an h2?
Philippe: Right, if you want to do that, then we do need to
make changes to specref too.
Glenn: Is your proposal to put the version info into the h2
Pierre?
Pierre: Yes that's what I would do if that's the direction
we're going in.
Glenn: Even though that breaks our convention today?
Pierre: Yes - do you know of anyone who uses the title with
version in the h1 today?
Glenn: Impossible to know.
Pierre: It seems like W3C is going in that direction generally
so I would follow it.
... We're just discussing modifying the TTML1 h1 to allow the
automatic bibliographic references to work.
... It would be to take "3rd Edition" out of the h1 and put it
in the h2.
Glenn: My preference would be to modify Specref in such a way
that we don't have to change
... the title to a different format.
Philippe: No, that's not going to happen and I can't propagate
that to other groups.
Pierre: We could introduce extra metadata duplicating the
information but that's undesirable.
Philippe: We already have people using respec to create these
h2s.
Glenn: I was suggesting that specref can look for metadata if
it is there and if absent then
... use the h2.
Philippe: That would be a special case and I'm not going to
allow special cases, for sure, sorry.
... It's not worth our development time unless I can propagate
the change.
Glenn: The problem I see is it breaks continuity with the past
titling convention, that's all.
... It would also require a change in TTML2. It's just a
formatting, stylistic change. We could
... make that change. Give me a few days to convince myself
it's okay.
Nigel: I think we should make an assumptive decision to change
to version in h2 and then
... you can tell us if you find any problem Glenn.
Pierre: I can just create a pull request for us to review,
that's more concrete.
Nigel: Yes
Glenn: Then we can look at it.
Nigel: Pierre, I think you can go ahead and do that please.
SUMMARY: @palemieux to prepare a pull request moving the
version into an h2
github-bot, end topic
<plh> [19]https://github.com/w3c/ttml1-tests/ and
[20]https://github.com/w3c/ttml2-tests/ are live
[19] https://github.com/w3c/ttml1-tests/
[20] https://github.com/w3c/ttml2-tests/
IMSC reference to TTML1
Nigel: Do we have an issue about the reference?
Pierre: IMSC 1.0.1 references the latest TTML1
Nigel: It's not raised as an issue.
Glenn: We haven't discussed this - it is an open question.
Pierre: Presumably the difference between editions is to
correct bugs and things that ought to be fixed.
... So it doesn't seem unreasonable for a profile of TTML1 to
reference the latest edition.
... I could be persuaded otherwise.
Glenn: Up until 3rd Ed we insisted on only editorial changes,
but in 3rd ed there are substantive changes.
Pierre: Yes, but regardless of whether the changes were
substantive, they are bug fixes,
... not feature additions. So if someone comes in and says
"which edition should I implement"
... we would always say the latest edition.
Philippe: Yes, that's what our system would say as well.
Glenn: It would be interesting to get other feedback on this,
Mike may have a different view.
Nigel: Yes, it's a technical issue - if an implementor
implements the spec precisely following
... the latest edition and then that changes underneath, then
the state of conformance of
... that implementation is unclear. It could be that it's not a
big enough problem to worry about.
Pierre: Yes I could be persuaded either way.
... This is confusing from an external point of view too and
causes arguments. Maybe I'm
... persuading myself to point to a specific edition.
Glenn: In the case of TTML1 referencing XML we point to a
specific version/edition of XML
... so that doesn't arise.
Nigel: It seems to be a matter of good practice to reference a
specific version but in doing that
... to accept that if the referenced spec changes then the
referring spec needs to be updated
... and that should be transparent.
Glenn: In TTML we have normative references to XML 1.0 and XML
1.1 and both have editions in the title.
Philippe: Which link do you use?
Glenn: We use the dated links.
... The title has the edition and the link is dated. That's the
practice we followed in TTML.
Pierre: Listening to this I'm starting to lean towards
referencing a specific version in IMSC 1.1.
... Maybe it wasn't a good idea in IMSC 1.0.1 to reference
TTML1 without dates.
Philippe: The only problem is if you reference a dated version
and you make a security
... update that you want everyone to pick up then they won't.
Pierre: The tooling on W3C... Imagine IMSC 1.1 makes a hard
reference to TTML1 2nd Ed.
... Imagine in the meantime it was superseded because of a
terrible security bug. When you
... get to it you would get a huge warning saying "don't use
this"?
Philippe: yes
Pierre: Doesn't that address the issue?
Philippe: If you don't mind this then realise that at the end
you are directing the reader to
... a specific version.
Pierre: At least it gives the reader the ability to do a diff
and see what changed.
... It also means, to Nigel's point, that as a group we have to
be more active in updating stuff.
... It is more work for us but it's more precise maybe.
Philippe: If you guys believe there is the use case to be that
precise then sure. At the end of
... the day it does not matter which reference you state,
people are going to use whichever
... XML parser they are familiar with. They're not going to
write their own.
Glenn: On the other hand, from a point of view of conformance
and testing you might have
... an issue there, but that's a separate point. Right now we
have referential integrity
... with respect to TTML references. We went through TTML2
recently.
... When we refer to RFC we don't have this issue, because they
don't change the text.
Nigel: They change the text to point the reader to a newer
version.
Glenn: That's true, but it doesn't change conformance wrt that
spec.
Philippe: This is topical because the AB is discussing living
standards.
Pierre: In some groups people want to be precise because they
are putting stuff on shelves
... for years and they want to know exactly which versions they
reference.
Glenn: I'm reminded of DOS, and switches in code to handle
different compatibility bits.
... That's what you end up with when you were very precise.
Nigel: There's a precise mirror here with python, node, java
etc with tests for a piece of software
... passing given a specific set of 3rd party library versions,
and capturing a freeze point
... of those versions. We could do that with our specs, and
associate a test suite with a specific
... set of reference versions.
Glenn: Right now the tests are based on a specific version of a
spec, you could make that
... the other way around.
... In the case of XML 1.1 it refers to the specific edit in
place date.
Nigel: I'm not sure if we need an issue against IMSC 1.1 to
reference a specific version of TTML2?
Glenn: I heard Pierre say he is leaning towards doing that.
github: [21]https://github.com/w3c/imsc/issues/381
[21] https://github.com/w3c/imsc/issues/381
SUMMARY: Discussion ongoing, group leaning towards a specific
dated reference to TTML
github-bot, end topic
TTML Test repos (revisited)
<plh> [22]https://github.com/w3c/ttml1-tests/ and
[23]https://github.com/w3c/ttml2-tests/ are live
[22] https://github.com/w3c/ttml1-tests/
[23] https://github.com/w3c/ttml2-tests/
Philippe: I've created the repos and put them in the Timed Text
team so you guys should
... all have write access to them. I still have some generic
files to add.
Nigel: Thank you!
[24]TTML1 Tests repo
[24] https://github.com/w3c/ttml1-tests
[25]TTML2 Tests repo
[25] https://github.com/w3c/ttml2-tests
IMSC
Philippe: FYI we started the superseding of IMSC 1.0 in favour
of IMSC 1.0.1 as decided
... by the WG in April. We started the proposal at the AC
level. Assuming everything else
... goes well then by mid-June we can declare IMSC 1.0
superseded, and all of the links
... will be updated as appropriate.
Nigel: Thank you!
WebVTT
Philippe: We are publishing the CR for WebVTT today so that was
the last publication in my
... pipeline for this WG.
Nigel: Thank you
Meeting close
Glenn: I just closed TTML2 issues 699 and 715 by merging the
approved pull requests that
... had been open for a while.
Nigel: Thank you.
... We seem to have covered our agenda for today, so I'll
adjourn. Just a note that in
... 2 weeks' time there's no meeting due to the IRT industry
event.
... Thanks everyone! [adjourns meeting]
Summary of Action Items
Summary of Resolutions
[End of minutes]
__________________________________________________________
Minutes formatted by David Booth's [26]scribe.perl version
1.152 ([27]CVS log)
$Date: 2018/05/10 15:18:10 $
[26] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
[27] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/
Received on Thursday, 10 May 2018 15:19:35 UTC