{minutes} TTWG Meeting 2018-09-27

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