{Minutes} TTWG Meeting 2019-04-11

Thanks all for attending today’s TTWG meeting. Minutes can be found in HTML format at https://www.w3.org/2019/04/11-tt-minutes.html

Please note that next week’s call (2019-04-18) is cancelled. Our next call will be on 2019-04-25.

Today’s minutes in text format:


   [1]W3C

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

                Timed Text Working Group Teleconference

11 Apr 2019

   [2]Agenda

      [2] https://github.com/w3c/ttwg/issues/32

   See also: [3]IRC log

      [3] https://www.w3.org/2019/04/11-tt-irc

Attendees

   Present
          Gary, Nigel, Pierre, Philippe

   Regrets
          Thierry, Glenn, Andreas

   Chair
          Nigel

   Scribe
          nigel, cyril

Contents

     * [4]Topics
         1. [5]this meeting
         2. [6]TTWG Charter
         3. [7]TTML Profile Registry Actions, Pull Requests and
            Issues
         4. [8]The codecs parameter should have a formal
            definition of the use of the combination operators.
            tt-profile-registry#71
         5. [9]WebVTT Implementation Report
         6. [10]TTML2 and TTML3 Pull Requests
         7. [11]TTWG Charter
         8. [12]Timelines
         9. [13]Meeting close
     * [14]Summary of Action Items
     * [15]Summary of Resolutions
     __________________________________________________________

   <nigel> scribe: nigel

   <scribe> scribe: cyril

this meeting

   nigel: next week's meeting we have regrets from Nigel, Philippe
   and Pierre
   ... so I propose to cancel next week's meeting

   cyril: +1

   nigel: ok cancelled
   ... today we have charter, profile registry, webvtt IR
   ... TTML2 and 3 PR

   pal: I'd like to talk about roadmap and requirements
   ... I'd like to work on IMSC next and would like to know what
   the plan is

   <plh> [16]https://github.com/w3c/strategy/issues/175

     [16] https://github.com/w3c/strategy/issues/175

   plh: I have an FYI
   ... we will look at subtitles and VR
   ... some of you may be interested, just watch the issue

TTWG Charter

   nigel: we'll come back to this topic later

TTML Profile Registry Actions, Pull Requests and Issues

   nigel: I've not seen any comment
   ... cyril raised 71
   ... but we want to publish now

   cyril: I'm fine with publishing and republishing when issue 71
   is resolved

   nigel: 2 weeks ago we recorded the resolution to publish it
   ... so we are at the end of our review period
   ... so plh can publish it

   <nigel> scribe: nigel

The codecs parameter should have a formal definition of the use of
the combination operators. tt-profile-registry#71

   github:
   [17]https://github.com/w3c/tt-profile-registry/issues/71

     [17] https://github.com/w3c/tt-profile-registry/issues/71

   Cyril: I discussed this with Mike and think he has the same
   view as me. We can discuss this on a call when
   ... all of I, Mike and Glenn are on the call.

   Nigel: Okay, let's come back to this another day

   <cyril> scribe: cyril

WebVTT Implementation Report

   nigel: gary sent responses on the Japanese requirements

   gkatsev: there are some features and some are missing
   ... I want to work on adding them but it shouldn't block the
   current process

   nigel: what do you mean?
   ... are there features in the document that have no test?
   ... we need to make sure that we have tests and should include
   them in the IR

   gkatsev: there are Japanese features that are necessary but not
   included in current WebVTT and that should be added in the
   future
   ... text-emphasis is not included in the white list

   nigel: I was concerned about features that are but not in the
   tests

   gkatsev: yes, those tests should be added

   plh: I reached out to APA
   ... to double check if they have anything to say about the
   features at-risk
   ... that's done
   ... the period ends may 2nd, and unless anything comes up, we
   should push PR after may 2nd and push any new feature to v2
   ... APA are aware of it but did not send response yet
   ... regarding Japanese, we may want to reach out to the i18n
   group and see if they are ok with delaying the missing features
   to v2
   ... obviously, there is work to do between now and may 2nd
   ... I'm trying to get everything aligned so that we are in a
   good position after may 2nd

   nigel: anything else to know regarding progress on the IR

   gkatsev: no

TTML2 and TTML3 Pull Requests

   nigel: since Glenn is not there, I don't know if we can tackle
   these
   ... the issues are [18]https://github.com/w3c/ttml2/issues/1034
   ... and the PR [19]https://github.com/w3c/ttml2/pull/1054

     [18] https://github.com/w3c/ttml2/issues/1034
     [19] https://github.com/w3c/ttml2/pull/1054

   pal: the one I'm really concerned about is 1043

   <plh> [20]TT Registry

     [20] https://www.w3.org/TR/2019/NOTE-ttml-profile-registry-20190411/

TTWG Charter

   nigel: we are in a good shape I think

   <nigel> [21]https://w3c.github.io/charter-timed-text/

     [21] https://w3c.github.io/charter-timed-text/

   nigel: the latest draft is simplified quite a lot

   plh: I did not review but I like the spirit
   ... basically what matters is the scope section
   ... to make sure there is no overlap between groups

   nigel: some sections need staff input
   ... dates, drafts that we use a starting points ...

   plh: I should have an action item to have a pass at it
   ... for example some sentences from our template have been
   removed and should be added back (security and accessibility)
   ... also section numbering consistency is greatly appreciated

   <plh>
   [22]https://rawgit.com/w3c/charter-drafts/gh-pages/charter-temp
   late.html

     [22] https://rawgit.com/w3c/charter-drafts/gh-pages/charter-template.html

   <plh> Each specification should contain a section detailing all
   known security and privacy implications for implementers, Web
   authors, and end users.

   plh: in the success criteria section, there are 2 important
   sentences that should not be removed

   pal: it's present

   nigel: not in that form

   plh: I see also that you have an accessibility
   ... so that's fine by me
   ... I'll still renumber sections
   ... you should raise an issue against the charter template
   ... we can't let one group change the charter, we should change
   the template

   pal: your request is to move the entire success criteria in the
   scope section

   plh: yes

   nigel: the plan is to send it for AC review beginning of may

Timelines

   nigel: some of the deliverables that we have in our
   requirements need new documents
   ... live contributions of TTML and Audio Descriptions
   ... I have internal draft
   ... for live contribution
   ... I'll probably be asking for a repo in some weeks
   ... on the Audio Description Profile of TTML2
   ... I've reconvened the community group
   ... and we had a successful meeting in march
   ... I'm expecting to apply editorial changes in the next few
   weeks
   ... and we can use that as a starting point for the charter and
   a WD from this group

   cyril: I have the plan to write a spec on Karaoke

   nigel: the other one is XR, VR, 360
   ... I'm not aware any document being written

   cyril: what about the extended use of fonts for images

   nigel: that certainly forms one potential solution for the
   problem
   ... I think we need an explainer for these

   pal: in the case of IMSC 1.1, we created a formal req doc
   ... and then a draft for IMSC 1.1
   ... here we do not have a req doc
   ... is the absence of a req doc going to block the process?

   nigel: it's good practice to have it

   pal: will it be a blocker?
   ... I can be happy with either
   ... I liked IMSC1.1's process
   ... but if we don't say it must, we're not going to do it

   nigel: I don't think it's a blocker in terms of process
   ... it's our choice
   ... but it's not our choice to write an explainer

   cyril: I don't understand the explainer

   nigel: groups like tag need an explainer in order to review
   work

   <nigel> [23]TAG Explainers

     [23] https://w3ctag.github.io/explainers

   nigel: and we need tag review
   ... since it's needed, it's good to have that at the beginning
   ... it's really basic, but it's a good idea

   cyril: thanks

   nigel: turning that into a lightweight requirements doc would
   be simple
   ... the one piece for which we have reqs is the Audio
   Description Profile

   <nigel> scribe: nigel

   Cyril: I agree with Pierre we need to move faster on these.
   ... Deadline for 1st Explainer draft and 1st spec draft?

   Nigel: Spec or Requirements draft?

   Cyril: You said we can derive the requirements from the
   explainer, so we don't need that now or at all?

   Nigel: I imagined we would create a dry requirements document
   using the explainer as motivation.

   Cyril: I don't really care about the requirements doc, I will
   do it if needed but it seems only the explainer and the spec
   ... are required documents. Two should be enough.

   Nigel: I'm prepared to look at the explainers and see if they
   are adequate for use as requirements.

   Cyril: Fair enough.
   ... Back to Pierre's comments, if we want a specification by
   the end of the year we should have started already.
   ... Having a deadline is probably helpful.

   Nigel: OK, any proposals for a deadline?

   Pierre: Looking at IMSC 1.2 (I guess) do we need an explainer
   or do the issues suffice?
   ... One requirement is inline display of textual elements that
   cannot be expressed using common fonts.
   ... One solution is images, another is custom fonts. I'm
   proposing that we go down the path of custom fonts and
   ... pursue that as far as we can and see if it doesn't work
   because that is something already supported by other timed
   ... text systems and has least impact on the spec.
   ... My inclination would be to go down that path for IMSC 1.2
   and I have started the editing work in that direction
   ... based on issue 472.
   ... If some folk still feel they must have inline images like
   SVG or bitmap then that's going to be a longer discussion
   ... because I know there are some users fundamentally opposed
   to any form of images in Text profile documents.

   Nigel: I think for IMSC it makes sense to duplicate the process
   for IMSC 1.1 and create a requirements document.

   Pierre: I think we can do that in 3 weeks. We have to have a
   set of baseline requirements documents and explainers.

   Cyril: Sure

   Nigel: That aligns nicely with the goal of sending the Charter
   for review at the beginning of May.
   ... (3 weeks is May 2).

   Pierre: Also in the back of my head I'm wondering if we need
   TTML3 this year.

   Nigel: Yes, there's not a huge set of changes that warrants a
   major point release, we could do everything in TTML2,
   ... even if that's TTML 2.1.

   Pierre: Yes, keep TTML3 on the charter for sure, but the
   current set of changes is small and may grow so we may want
   ... to publish it next year instead.

   Cyril: Yes, I think the extensions and IMSC 1.2 are important,
   but there is not a pressing list of urgent needs for TTML3
   right now.
   ... I think we need to discuss this in our next call in 2
   weeks.

   Nigel: Yes.

Meeting close

   Nigel: Thanks everyone, let's adjourn, see you again in 2 weeks
   time. [adjourns meeting]

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

   [End of minutes]
     __________________________________________________________


    Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by
    David Booth's [24]scribe.perl version 1.154 ([25]CVS log)
    $Date: 2019/04/11 16:25:43 $

     [24] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
     [25] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/