- From: Nigel Megitt <nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk>
- Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2019 17:00:39 +0000
- To: Timed Text Working Group <public-tt@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <D97B4E03.4BA47%nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk>
Thanks all for attending todays TTWG meeting. Minutes can be found in HTML format at https://www.w3.org/2019/08/15-tt-minutes.html
In text format:
[1]W3C
[1] https://www.w3.org/
Timed Text Working Group Teleconference
15 August 2019
[2]Agenda. [3]IRC log.
[2] https://github.com/w3c/ttwg/issues/55
[3] https://www.w3.org/2019/08/15-tt-irc
Attendees
Present
Cyril, Glenn, Nigel, Pierre
Regrets
Andreas, Atsushi, Gary
Chair
Nigel
Scribe
cyril
Contents
* [4]Meeting minutes
1. [5]This meeting
2. [6]TTML2 issues
3. [7]Add a syntactic shortcut for an implied audio
element. ttml2#1013
4. [8]Constrain use of @type on data element for
reference data embeddings. ttml2#1022
5. [9]TTML1 tests
6. [10]TTML Live Extensions Module
7. [11]Charter status update
8. [12]TPAC Planning
9. [13]meeting close
Meeting minutes
<nigel> nigel has changed the topic to: TTWG weekly webex.
Today 1500 UTC. Agenda for 2019-08-15: [14]https://github.com/
w3c/ttwg/issues/55
[14] https://github.com/w3c/ttwg/issues/55
<nigel> Log: [15]https://www.w3.org/2019/08/15-tt-irc
[15] https://www.w3.org/2019/08/15-tt-irc
This meeting
nigel: we are very few
I pull out a couple of substantive issues for TTML2
Test work
TTML Live extension module draft got pushed a couple of days
ago
AOB: Charter update
any AOB?
TTML2 issues
Add a syntactic shortcut for an implied audio element. ttml2#1013
<nigel> github: [16]https://github.com/w3c/ttml2/issues/1013
[16] https://github.com/w3c/ttml2/issues/1013
nigel: I assume Glenn that there is nothing to do except
implement it editorially
glenn: I marked it substantive because ...
it's asking for a default behavior that is not currently the
case
nigel: it's implemented in one place at least as requested
but the spec change is probably substantive, I agree
glenn: you're asking that if no src is present, it default to
speech
,. and even if there is no audio
nigel: when speak is used
glenn: you could have a top level body element with an audio
child
nigel: if you add in an audio element referring to the speech
at the body level, you can't independently control the gain of
the audio programme down in the hierarchy
that's a common use case, duck the programme audio but not
the speech
you need to bring the speech synthesis further in the
document tree
but it becomes very verbose
glenn: if you wanted to alter the gain on a leaf span, with
speak=normal
could you not put gain on that span and it would control the
gain of what got contributed and picked up at the high level
nigel: no it would control the gain of everything mixed in
not the differential gain
glenn: I think to study it more and start implementing a PR
I agree that right now it's not concretely defined
given the minimum implementations out there, if you have one
implementation that does that, it is probably the right way to
go
nigel: we may have tests for that
glenn: you contributed those audio tests
nigel: yes
I'll check
<nigel>
[17]ttml2-tests/presentation/valid/ttml2-prstn-audio-speak-on-s
pan.xml test
[17] https://github.com/w3c/ttml2-tests/blob/master/presentation/valid/ttml2-prstn-audio-speak-on-span.xml
nigel: this one does not contain audio
and that test passed in our implementation, it did speak it
the test matches what I'm asking to be specified now
glenn: I'll add that to my work list
Constrain use of @type on data element for reference data embeddings.
ttml2#1022
<nigel> github: [18]https://github.com/w3c/ttml2/issues/1022
[18] https://github.com/w3c/ttml2/issues/1022
nigel: raised by Glenn initially, edited by me
I thought this was merged
glenn: I'm not sure if the constraint on the use of type has
been
it may be that there is no further action
I need to check
I'll post a PR
if needed
nigel: can you add details in the issue about what was merged
already
glenn: yes
TTML1 tests
nigel: there was an issue 1, to add a readme and populate the
repo
glenn suggested to add TTV tests
in the context that these tests are not CR tests
glenn did and you cannot identify their source
there is a comment regarding pending tests waiting approval
there are lots of validation and presentation tests, a script
as well
glenn: basically, I used the same structure that we have in the
TTML2 test repository
I tweaked the readme file a bit
but it's the same structure and convention
the tests themselves don't identify the source
use the appropriate license
the next thing I need to do is take that test from IMSC on
region timing test
and put that in using the same conventions
it's on my list
I want to review the original test suite
to make sure that these tests include the same content
since we did not have validation test concept in TTML1
initially
there are about 300 tests that I added, coming from TTV and
TTPE
nigel: I agree we need to check that the TTML1 CR initial tests
are in
we have a bunch of IMSC tests and they are a subset of the
TTML1 tests
perhaps we should point to them too
glenn: the IMSC test suite exist independently
it focuses on IMSC features that are new
as well as on the constraints model that IMSC puts in place
we could incorporate some tests from there with minor
massaging
there is probably some redundancy that is not harmful
we'd have to look at the IMSC tests on a case by case basis
to make sure that there is nothing that would be problematic
for TTML1 processors
in theory they should not be
moving forward we can incrementally add new tests
nigel: any other question?
TTML Live Extensions Module
<nigel> [19]TTML Live Extensions Module README
[19] https://github.com/w3c/tt-module-live/blob/master/README.md
nigel: I have pushed (after Cyril's approval to get past the
branch protection) 3 documents
we can use them as a basis to raise issues
I have some editor's notes to make changes in the guide
the TTML live extension module is done, pending comments
also the TTML live carriage over websocket
the one that does need some work is the guide
this structure of having a guide separate from the main spec
is based on the request from the group to pare down the
specification only to the normative parts
I'm interested if more needs to be pruned out or more added
we can shift content between documents
I plan to bring examples from the EBU document into the guide
I'd like to add this to the agenda for TPAC
so people have about a month to review it
pal: is there a place where one can find a link to all TTML
repos
I'm looking at the wiki, under publications, and can't find
it
<nigel> [20]TTWG Home page including repos
[20] https://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/#recent-activity
nigel: the home page contains all the repos
I need to add the Karaoke, the Live module, ...
pal: it'd be good to have all the modules on which we are
working
<glenn> try [21]https://github.com/
search?q=org%3Aw3c+tt&unscoped_q=tt etc
[21] https://github.com/search?q=org:w3c+tt&unscoped_q=tt
<nigel> [22]Action on Nigel to add new repos to the home page
[22] https://github.com/w3c/ttwg/issues/65
nigel: in terms of details regarding the live extension, I
created the new features for the live extensions in the TTML
features namespace
I didn't do in the EBU namespace or some other namespace
I just use the feature namespace directly
cyril: I did the same in the karaoke module
glenn: so there is the definition of the underlying features
(element types, attribute types) and you used the existing
namespaces for that?
nigel: I was talking about the feature designation
glenn: you put that in the standard features namespace not the
extension namespace
nigel: right
glenn: and about the underlying features?
nigel: I kept them in the source EBU namespaces
there are only attributes, no new elements
glenn: that might be a problem
to put the feature designation in the standard namespace
while using non-TTML namespaces for the underlying features
nigel: I did not think it would be a problem, but please review
and explain why it would be a problem
pal: EBU is giving up the control of those elements?
nigel: yes, for this work
pal: it'd be good to have confirmation for that
nigel: not everything in EBU namespaces would move under W3C's
control
glenn: if you propose to include underlying features defined
under EBU controlled namespaces, it makes me uncomfortable
nigel: anything under these specifications is being contributed
by EBU
no doubt in my mind
if we need to extend in the future, we might want to add it
in the same namespace, but EBU might not be happy with that
is that the problem?
pal: I'm not sure I see a scenario where we need to use names
for other things that those that were transferred
extensions will be in W3C namespaces
I don't see a risk
but we need a formal communication from EBU explicitly saying
we transfer control of these elements/attributes/features
nigel: I agree
to glenn's point, I feel that the namespace of the feature
designator can be separate from the namespace of the referenced
vocabulary
glenn: one thing that would make me more comfortable is if you
used the extensions namespace instead of the features namespace
nigel: that's not the point of how we do modules
glenn: [explaining extension catalog]
I don't have a definitive comment to make right now
need to review carefully
nigel: exactly
glenn: can you include in your explainer the rationale for
using the TTML namespaces
s/for using/for not using/
<nigel> for _not_ using the TTML namespaces for the vocabulary
nigel: to preserve existing implementation
glenn: also add the rationale for using the features namespace
and not the extensions one
nigel: because we are defining the module
pal: on that point, that's for me interop standpoint
there would be no downside in having it in the extensions
namespace
nigel: I can't think of a problem
pal: there is a features and extensions bucket
nigel: I consider them separate by namespace only, no
difference
nigel: anyway, my main point was to highlight the fact that the
specs were here for people to review before TPAC
Charter status update
<nigel> [23]Proposed Charter (diff)
[23] https://services.w3.org/htmldiff?doc1=https://www.w3.org/2018/05/timed-text-charter.html&doc2=https://www.w3.org/2019/08/ttwg-proposed-charter.html
nigel: the thing to note is that the new TTWG charter as been
put for AC review
please encourage your AC rep to look through that and provide
feedback and vote
do look at the details of it
it has been tweaked
pal: can you summarize them?
nigel: the coordination and review bits
there was a discussion about readopting the template text
pal: I'll do a manual diff
nigel: the one issue that I had was that the template text said
that before entering CR you have to do Horizontal Review
they clarified that by saying "first entering CR". That 3
months means we need to ask for HR on new documents very soon.
pal: if they insist on that, we should do FPWD
nigel: but maybe we can do the HR on ED
any other question?
TPAC Planning
nigel: we have a wiki page
I've not seen any edit
do we want to have a meeting in a call the week after TPAC
I'll take views, don't have a strong opinion
any views?
cyril: no objection
nigel: let's cancel the call the week after TPAC
cyril: ok
nigel: next week I'm not available
if anybody wants to chair let me know
otherwise it may get cancelled
ping me in the next 24h
Gary might be back
pal: my regrets for next week
meeting close
nigel: thanks everybody, adjourned
Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by
Bert Bos's [24]scribe.perl version Mon Apr 15 13:11:59 2019
UTC, a reimplementation of David Booth's [25]scribe.perl. See
[26]history.
[24] https://w3c.github.io/scribe2/scribedoc.html
[25] https://dev.w3.org/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
[26] https://github.com/w3c/scribe2/commits/master/scribe.perl
Received on Thursday, 15 August 2019 17:01:11 UTC