- From: Nigel Megitt <nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk>
- Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2018 15:23:42 +0000
- To: TTWG <public-tt@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <D7D2B440.68A93%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/2018/09/27-tt-minutes.html
In text format:
[1]W3C
[1] http://www.w3.org/
Timed Text Working Group Teleconference
27 Sep 2018
See also: [2]IRC log
[2] https://www.w3.org/2018/09/27-tt-irc
Attendees
Present
Andreas, Cyril, Pierre, Thierry, Nigel, Glenn
Regrets
None
Chair
Nigel
Scribe
nigel
Contents
* [3]Topics
1. [4]This meeting
2. [5]CfC Status
3. [6]TTML1 Implementation Report
4. [7]IMSC 1.1 Implementation report
5. [8]TTML2 Implementation Report
6. [9]IMSC vNext Requirements
7. [10]TPAC 2018
8. [11]TTML2 Implementation Report revisited
9. [12]TTML2 references to W3C specs
10. [13]Meeting Close
* [14]Summary of Action Items
* [15]Summary of Resolutions
__________________________________________________________
<scribe> scribe: nigel
This meeting
Nigel: Today, we have the CfC update, confirming the
Implementation Reports,
... and if possible requesting transition to PR,
... IMSC vNext Reqs publication,
... TPAC 2018 planning
... ... anything else?
Pierre: [need to leave in 30 minutes]
Nigel: Ok, anything else for the agenda?
group: [nothing]
CfC Status
Nigel: As I emailed to the reflector yesterday, the CfCs for
the PR versions of TTML1 3ed, TTML2 and IMSC 1.1 are closed
with
... no objections received, so those are now recorded
resolutions, recorded in my emails.
... Thank you everyone for reviewing those documents.
... The only remaining preconditions I'm aware of prior to
requesting transition are to confirm we have completed the
... Implementation Reports, which we're about to come to.
... Are there any other tasks to do?
Thierry: I've prepared the transition requests.
Nigel: I've reviewed and fed back on the TTML2.
Thierry: Yes, that's done. I think I'm waiting for a response
on the other two transition requests. I've made a few edits
... so I'll send those to you to review.
Nigel: Thank you, I'll do that.
Thierry: Also all the WBS questionnaires for AC review are
done.
... Once the transition is requested I will need to draft the
announcement.
... We're ready and on time.
Nigel: Just an aside - the detailed timeline has been an
incredibly useful resource for tracking what we're doing
... and driving us forward, and everyone has worked very hard
to meet those dates. Thank you.
Thierry: Thank you.
TTML1 Implementation Report
[16]TTML1 3rd Edition Implementation Report
[16] https://www.w3.org/wiki/TimedText/TTML1-3ED_implementation_report
Nigel: Note I've created a category for the Implementation
Reports:
[17]Implementation Report Category
[17] https://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?title=Category:ImplementationReport&action=edit&redlink=1
Nigel: I'd like to do minor polishing on this to reference the
CR Exit Criteria, group the implementations by organisation,
... and be explicit that the CR Exit Criteria have been met.
... Aside from that, every test has at least two passing
implementations from at least two organisations, so we're good
there I think.
... Any other comments, is everyone happy with this and my
proposed small changes?
Glenn: Question is "are there any objections". No objection
here.
Nigel: Thank you, silence is assent here!
group: [no objections]
Nigel: Thank you, in that case I will make my editorial changes
and we can proceed.
... Do we need a "this is final" banner on the top?
Glenn: Not yet at least, we might have some tweaking as we go
further.
Pierre: I think we'll do that once we've published.
Glenn: Exactly, once we go to Rec we can add that banner.
Nigel: Ok that works for me.
Pierre: Just to confirm, on TTML1 we're good to go?
Nigel: Yes. I will review the transition request and then we're
good to go.
Pierre: Thank you.
IMSC 1.1 Implementation report
[18]IMSC 1.1 Implementation Report
[18] https://www.w3.org/wiki/TimedText/IMSC1_1_Implementation_Report
Nigel: This IR shows no tests needed.
Cyril: I think it's a bit awkward to have the empty tests
section.
... Suggest replacing the 3rd sentence "For this
specification..." to point to the IRs of TTML2 and IMSC 1.0.1
<cyril> The following is the implementation report for the IMSC
1.1 specification. This implementation report is used to
demonstrate implementation experience for transition to
Proposed Recommendation. All features of IMSC1.1 are
implemented and documented either as part of the implementation
report of IMSC1.0.1 (link) or as part of TTML2's implementation
report (link). Do not hesitate to direct questions and/or
results to the TTWG mailing list [1] and/or the IMSC1.1 Ed
[1] http://www.w3.org/
Nigel: I like to reproduce the CR Exit Criteria in the IR for
convenience, but I like the other text.
... I'll also propose changing the "Tests" heading to
"Features"
... I can take those two suggestions editorially and make that
look better.
Cyril: OK
Nigel: Any other points on this?
Glenn: I just fixed an out of date link to the TTML2 IR that
was in the IMSC 1.1 IR, FYI.
Nigel: Thank you
Glenn: The TTML2 IR was in the wrong location, which is why I
think the CSS wasn't working before, because it has to be
... enabled on a per top-level-directory basis.
Nigel: That makes sense.
Glenn: By the way on the transition request do you need the
presence of any of the Editors?
Thierry: I don't think there will be a call. If there is a need
they will schedule a call, but it shouldn't trigger a call I
think.
Glenn: Yes I don't see any reason why we need to. In the past
I've attended when there were questions.
... I don't think we have any outstanding objections to deal
with here.
Nigel: I'm not aware of any.
TTML2 Implementation Report
[19]TTML2 Implementation Report
[19] https://www.w3.org/wiki/TimedText/TTML2ImplementationReport
Nigel: First, thank you to Glenn for putting the detail
together on this, and for everyone else for working on the
upstream
... online spreadsheet. This has been a massive effort.
Glenn: Spaciba. Thank you.
Nigel: In the past few hours I have:
... * added the CR exit criteria
... * Added the organisation supplying each implementation
... (please let me know if you don't want your organisation
listed!)
<glenn> очень хорошо, спасибо
Nigel: * Added a column to Table 3 assessing the CR Exit
Criteria.
... They all pass!
... Glenn already asked for people to check their
implementations are correctly represented. If there are any
changes please
... let Glenn know for the totals, and me know in case the CR
Exit Criteria test needs to be changed.
Cyril: It's a lot better, thank you Glenn for having
reorganised it.
... I have one concern that the #T column is misleading to
count so many implementations when we have at least 8.
... I don't think we need the #T column to be so big.
Glenn: It's accurate as defined and will take effort that's not
needed at this point to change it.
... The data was generated by a formula in the spreadsheet.
... What you're suggesting would require going through and
changing that.
... It's not misleading if you read the description.
Nigel: Actually they're misleading in another way because they
count non-independent implementations the same as
... independent ones. That's why I added the CR Exit Criteria
column. The totals aren't actually useful - I didn't use them
... when assessing the CR exit criteria. It will be a lot of
effort to remove those columns.
Glenn: I wouldn't object to them being removed, I just don't
want to do the work!
Cyril: OK I guess I can live with the totals columns remaining.
Nigel: From my perspective this IR is complete. Are there any
other changes that anyone wants to make on it?
Glenn: I should note that when I created the validation test
results tables it was a bit of a manual process because the
... implementers did not provide me data in terms of pass/fail
tests. What I had to do was take the data from the features
... table and mutate it to create the data for the validation
and presentation test results. So wherever for example a
validation
... implementation had reported F (full) meaning "passed all
the validity and invalidity tests" I could check off all the
tests against
... that feature. Otherwise I did not do so for that
implementation.
... So for those that were marked S I could only mark off the
valid validity tests because I didn't know which of the
invalidity
... tests failed. If you wonder why there are no Fails in any
of those tests, that's because I had no Fail data from any of
the
... implementers. I don't think there's an issue there. That's
why I asked implementers to check their column.
Nigel: That's a good point, do we have the test pass/fail data?
Cyril: For NFLX-V I would have to regenerate that data, I don't
have it any more.
Andreas: I think we have for the different features a list of
which tests failed.
Nigel: The tests that pass are even more important in a way.
Andreas: Okay. You want documentation of which test files pass
and which fail?
Nigel: I think we need to know which tests pass.
Andreas: Perhaps I misunderstood.
Nigel: I think what's needed is that the validation table
entries are checked because Glenn explained that he derived the
... values in those tables and I took it that there is some
possibility of an error.
Glenn: Especially tables 1 and 2.
Andreas: My understanding is that the minimum entry point to
say something is implemented is to pass all Valid tests.
... So there should be no false negatives, that would make a
valid file show up as invalid.
... If something is implemented then at least it passes the
valid tests.
... For the invalid tests, there may be some who do not reveal
an invalid message, in which case the invalid test did not pass
... the test.
... And so the conclusion of Glenn is correct that at least all
the Valid tests passed.
Glenn: I would suggest Andreas that you have IRT check all of
the Table 1 and 2 entries for subcheck and Cyril the same for
... the NFLX-V column.
... Primarily table 1.
... I just looked again and see that there were a couple of
features that IRT did not report either F or S for animation,
so they
... did not get checked as passed under Table 1 Validation
tests.
Andreas: Ok
Glenn: All the rest were either F or S. I think in the case of
NFLX-V all but time-wallclock got reported as F or S.
Cyril: That's correct.
... All of the others were partial or full.
Glenn: I could discern from looking at the result that the
validators that reported that they passed the invalidity tests
were
... doing so for values that were tested by the schema. For
example all attributes that are typed in the schema as an
enumeration
... type were checked off as Full pretty much. That makes sense
to me. The ones that are not typed as enumeration values
... require special purpose parsers which is a little extra
work.
Andreas: I'm just checking. I think for the Valid tests it is
straightforward, it's always passed if we checked something.
For the
... invalid content test to mark it as Passed, it's only for
tests that are implemented fully, correct? Just for F?
Glenn: If you had reported the feature as Strictly passing (S)
then I checked off all of the tests as passed in the Valid
content table, Table 1.
... If neither F nor S was reported for a feature then I did
not check off the tests associated with that feature in the
Invalidity test content table 2.
Nigel: And for F you checked off both of them?
Glenn: That's correct. Sorry that was hard to parse!
Nigel: OK, please do check those columns. Is there any more on
that?
Glenn: I'm not expecting any changes unless Table 4 needs
changing.
Nigel: Thank you, any other points to raise on the
implementation report.
Glenn: This IR for TTML2 was a lot more complicated than for
TTML1.
... And many more tests.
Nigel: Yes, and all the better for it!
... In that case, I'm declaring that barring any final checks
of table entries, this implementation report is confirmed.
IMSC vNext Requirements
Nigel: The only thing to report on this is that we published
the IMSC v1.1 requirements.
[20]IMSC v1.1 Requirements Note.
[20] https://www.w3.org/TR/2018/NOTE-imsc-1.1-reqs-20180925
Nigel: Thank you Thierry for getting that published, and
everyone for contributing to it.
TPAC 2018
Nigel: I've edited the Wiki page
[21]TTWG TPAC 2018 page
[21] https://www.w3.org/wiki/TimedText/tpac2018
Nigel: After last week's call I updated the wiki page and
agenda to match.
Glenn: I have some input from some people that they are
interested in fleshing out Karaoke features or at least
verifying that
... what we have can support it, or any barriers to usage. If
we need to add any features to support it, along with live
... captioning I think we should also look again at roll-up
support and see if we can do anything to make it easier to do
that.
... We need some tests that verify we can emulate roll-up using
our current animation technology. I'm in favour of having a few
... minutes to discuss these items.
Nigel: Ok we have time to do that.
Glenn: I should probably also go through the 2nd Ed issues
logged against TTML2 to see if some of those bear discussion.
Nigel: Sounds good.
... We should probably lump 2nd Ed requirements into the
"Future requirements" section.
... I think we should consider celebrating on the Monday
evening.
Glenn: Sure, let's pick a venue.
Nigel: Let's do that offline.
TTML2 Implementation Report revisited
Andreas: Before, there was just the feature documentation, on
the wiki page now we have an entry for every test file.
... We did not give any information on the individual test
files although we had that information.
... I think all the marks that Glenn set should be okay. The
question is if we should then mark some additional files as
... passing. The feature may only be strictly passing, so there
were no false negatives, but some features may have reported
... false positives, but I'm not sure if this is needed at this
point in time because we have enough to cover the
implementation.
... I'm not sure if we should update the table.
Nigel: I agree, the thing we should avoid is a
misrepresentation, so if the page shows a test passing, but in
fact it does not,
... then we need to address that quickly.
Andreas: Yes, but this should not be the case, as Glenn
described.
Nigel: The situation we want to avoid is a misrepresentation -
it's particularly concerning if an implementation claims to
... pass a test but in fact does not. If you want to make
additional claims about tests that pass but are not marked as
passing,
... that's also fine.
Andreas: Okay I understand.
TTML2 references to W3C specs
Glenn: We had from last week's meeting a request to update the
informative references to W3C specifications, specifically
... to CSS documents and to Web Audio. In the intervening
period Pierre pointed out that the URLs for the two XML Schema
... normative references were not specific URLs even though the
text of those bibliographic entries had dates in them so they
... could be implied. In both cases those URLs were updated,
and in the case of the informative references in some cases I
... updated the list of authors, editors etc. It's all up to
date and all the W3C documents referenced now have specific
dated
... URLs in both the normative and informative sections.
Nigel: Thank you for that update.
Meeting Close
Nigel: We've completed all of our agenda topics, thank you. I
will review the two remaining draft transition requests
straight
... away and then Thierry when that's done you can make the
requests.
Thierry: I will do that.
Nigel: Thank you everyone. [adjourns meeting]
Summary of Action Items
Summary of Resolutions
[End of minutes]
__________________________________________________________
Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by
David Booth's [22]scribe.perl version 1.154 ([23]CVS log)
$Date: 2018/09/27 15:21:37 $
[22] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
[23] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/
----------------------------
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.
---------------------
Received on Thursday, 27 September 2018 15:24:07 UTC