- From: Nigel Megitt <nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk>
- Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2019 17:12:57 +0000
- To: TTWG <public-tt@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <029E1FCE-E9F3-45BD-92B9-4086046B27F3@bbc.co.uk>
Thanks all for attending today's TTWG meeting. Minutes can be found in HTML format at https://www.w3.org/2019/12/05-tt-minutes.html
In text format:
[1]W3C
[1] https://www.w3.org/
Timed Text Working Group Teleconference
05 December 2019
[2]Previous meeting. [3]Agenda. [4]IRC log.
[2] https://www.w3.org/2019/11/21-tt-minutes.html
[3] https://github.com/w3c/ttwg/issues/81
[4] https://www.w3.org/2019/12/05-tt-irc
Attendees
Present
Andreas, Atsushi, Gary, Nigel, Pierre
Regrets
Cyril, Glenn
Chair
Nigel, Gary
Scribe
nigel
Contents
* [5]Meeting minutes
1. [6]This meeting
2. [7](Re-)join to timed text WG after charter renewal
3. [8]IMSC 1.2 FPWD Next steps
4. [9]WebVTT
5. [10]ADPT
6. [11]AOB - Profile Designator for IMSC 1.2 Image
Profile
7. [12]Meeting close
Meeting minutes
Log: [13]https://www.w3.org/2019/12/05-tt-irc
[13] https://www.w3.org/2019/12/05-tt-irc
This meeting
Nigel: Agenda for today
Gary: I will give an update in the WebVTT section
Nigel: Any other business?
group: no other business
(Re-)join to timed text WG after charter renewal
Atsushi: Since TTWG Charter renewed with additional
deliverables, that means the past participants of TTWG
… list is reset and everyone needs to rejoin the WG. Actually I
also am not sure what is happening.
… Some may need to leave and rejoin the WG. The list of
participants page still lists the old Charter participants.
… Please check the status page of the WG and check your company
is listed.
[14]TTWG Status Page
[14] https://www.w3.org/2004/01/pp-impl/34314/status
Atsushi: You need to join within 45 days of charter renewal.
Please don't forget!
Andreas: It's important to send an email out with this
information because a lot of members of the group do not join
the calls.
Atsushi: Yes, actually I wonder how to write these points. Let
me seek some more information and explain what to do
… if anyone has any troubles.
[15]Action for Atsushi to send the email
[15] https://github.com/w3c/ttwg/issues/86
IMSC 1.2 FPWD Next steps
Nigel: Now we have published IMSC 1.2 FPWD (thank you!), just
want to check in about next steps.
… I think we have one or two spec issues and I need to contact
the liaisons as listed in the Charter to request wide review.
… Is there anything else we need to do?
group: nothing more
Nigel: I'll send something based on previous WR requests,
highlighting the main new feature.
Pierre: Happy to review the wording.
Nigel: Thank you, I'll take you up on that.
[16]Request WR for IMSC 1.2 ttwg#87
[16] https://github.com/w3c/ttwg/issues/87
Nigel: There are open issues on IMSC 1.2 that have not
necessarily been resolved.
Pierre: I think many of those could be closed as not an issue -
we may not have the right quorum right now.
… My recommendation would be to close without action for most
of them.
Nigel: I'll add a comment to the issues and note that if more
discussion is needed for those remaining open then I
… will allocate time for them during next week's call.
Pierre: Take issue 493 for instance.
[17]itts:forcedDisplay should apply to image element in image
profile imsc#493
[17] https://github.com/w3c/imsc/issues/493
Pierre: I think it is not necessary because all images are in
div wrappers and forcedDisplay applies to div, so we can
… fix as no change, at least for now, or defer to a future
version.
Nigel: These are not urgent but I will signal the desire to
cover them next week.
Pierre: The other one is 506
[18]Potential semantic conflict between ttp:profile and
ttp:contentProfiles. imsc#506
[18] https://github.com/w3c/imsc/issues/506
Pierre: I think where Glenn and I ended up is that this is
complicated and it's up to the user and we're talking about
… corner cases so there's nothing here to do I think.
Nigel: I was concerned from this thread that there may end up
being some kind of ambiguity in the TTML2 algorithm
… that isn't really dealt with. I'm not sure if that's the
case.
Pierre: On that point the TTML2 algorithm is very clear. What
is not clear is whether or not there is a normative
… requirement for validators to highlight inconsistencies.
Nigel: Such as?
Pierre: Such as having an effective processor profile that does
not support features that are permitted in the effective
… content profile.
Nigel: Crumbs!
Pierre: The algorithms for getting those effective profiles are
completely unambiguous. A smart validator might want
… to flag inconsistencies, such as the mismatch between
processor and content profiles.
… My conclusion is the algorithm is clear but what is not clear
is what if any action a validator should take.
… For example if you signal a content profile that is
inconsistent with the processor profile but the document
doesn't
… include any of the offending features, is that bad? Maybe
it's intended. Hard to tell.
Nigel: Right and we don't have any requirement in the spec that
says that if contentProfiles is present and says, say,
… Image profile, then the processorProfiles must minimally
include something requiring support for Image profile.
Pierre: Yes, we had a long discussion about that. Instead what
we say is the list of profiles that the processor must
… support, and it's up to the author not to do anything stupid.
Nigel: Any evidence about how much of a real world issue this
is?
Pierre: Fairly confident it is zero.
… The spec recommends a particular style of signalling, and if
people follow that then they won't run into this issue.
… The risk is minimal to non-existing.
… The vast majority of users will just signal one or the other,
Text or Image and that's it.
Nigel: Thanks for helping clarify that.
Pierre: Another one in this category is 492
[19]tts:position should be permitted in image profile imsc#492
[19] https://github.com/w3c/imsc/issues/492
Pierre: This is another one where I think we should defer or
close as won't fix.
Nigel: Right, makes sense to me.
… Again, if there were some real driver or demand for this from
the user community I would suggest revisiting.
Pierre: Basically every single Image based IMSC document is a
bunch of divs with smpteBackground and that's it.
… I think folks have been happy just using origin and extent
and smpte:backgroundImage.
Nigel: Okay let's aim to get a decision and closure on these by
the end of next week's meeting.
Pierre: Thanks
Nigel: Anything else on IMSC 1.2?
Pierre: No, thanks for getting it out the door.
Nigel: Seconded.
WebVTT
<gkatsev> [20][IR] entities test is failing webvtt#464
[20] https://github.com/w3c/webvtt/issues/464
Gary: Pretty short update. We recently received a PR for vtt.js
that updates how escaping is done and this means that
… the HTML entities are now fully escaped properly and show up
properly. So the entities test now has enough
… implementations. Slowly, but we're making progress on
completing the outstanding issues on the IR.
Nigel: I see there are lots of open PRs and issue on WebVTT.
Gary: I need to go through those. They've been sitting around
and noone has complained so they're good to merge by now.
Nigel: Are any of them substantive?
Gary: I believe so, yes.
ADPT
Nigel: This is the AD Profiles of TTML2. I just wanted to
update the group on two things.
… First, the repo has been transferred into TTWG. There are a
bunch of issues I need to handle editorially, and some
… pull requests too.
… I'm planning to spend some concentrated effort on this
hopefully in January so we can get to FPWD.
… Next on my queue after that would be the TTML Live Extensions
modules.
AOB - Profile Designator for IMSC 1.2 Image Profile
Pierre: This is related to an issue Cyril opened, which is that
the change in profile designators was not listed in
… the substantive change section. Issue 508.
[21]Change in profile designators missing from Substantive
Change section imsc#508
[21] https://github.com/w3c/imsc/issues/508
Pierre: Cyril is correct that the substantive changes section
needs to be updated, that's clear.
… It's also clear that the Text profile feature designator has
to be revved up because some features were added to the
… text profile. But nothing happened to the Image Profile.
… I think what probably happened is I revved it up in
anticipation of changes to Image Profile but no changes were
… actually made. So I think we should leave the Image profile
designator the same, 1.1, or add some text to say the
… effective profile designator has not been changed.
… I can see how revving up with no change would be confusing
but equally not revving up would be confusing.
… We should fix it quickly if we're going to change it.
… As a data point, if we had the profiles in two separate
documents the Image document would not have changed
… so the profile designator would not have changed. I think
that's the technically correct solution.
Nigel: I think there's no reason we can't address this next
publication. In the meantime please could you add an
… editor's note to the profile designators section in the ED
that this issue exists?
Pierre: Alright, and I'll create a separate issue for tracking
this.
… The issue will be about whether or not the designators should
change given the lack of substantive change to the profile.
Nigel: Makes sense, thank you.
Nigel: Any instant views from the group on this question?
group: [no instant views]
Nigel: That's an interesting question, let's have a think about
it.
Pierre: I plan to issue a PR shortly to address imsc#495 and
imsc#508.
Nigel: Thanks for the head-up.
Meeting close
Nigel: We've completed our agenda. Thanks everyone! [adjourns
meeting]
Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by
Bert Bos's [22]scribe.perl version Mon Apr 15 13:11:59 2019
UTC, a reimplementation of David Booth's [23]scribe.perl. See
[24]history.
[22] https://w3c.github.io/scribe2/scribedoc.html
[23] https://dev.w3.org/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
[24] https://github.com/w3c/scribe2/commits/master/scribe.perl
Received on Thursday, 5 December 2019 17:13:04 UTC