{minutes} TTWG Meeting 2019-01-24

Thanks all for attending today’s TTWG meeting. Minutes can be found in HTML format at https://www.w3.org/2019/01/24-tt-minutes.html


A reminder that next week we will have our face to face meeting in Geneva on Thursday. Please review the agenda at https://www.w3.org/wiki/TimedText/F2F-jan-2019 and
let me know if you have any requests for specific time slots to cover any particular topics.

In text format:


   [1]W3C

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


                Timed Text Working Group Teleconference

24 Jan 2019

   [2]Agenda

      [2] https://github.com/w3c/ttwg/issues/13


   See also: [3]IRC log

      [3] https://www.w3.org/2019/01/24-tt-irc


Attendees

   Present
          Andreas, Gary, Nigel, Thierry, Cyril

   Regrets
          Glenn, Mike

   Chair
          Nigel

   Scribe
          nigel, cyril

Contents

     * [4]Topics
         1. [5]This meeting
         2. [6]TTML Profile Registry w3c/tt-profile-registry#58
            Fix spec reference for etx2 to point to EBU-TT 1.1
         3. [7]TTWG Future requirements
         4. [8]Joint f2f meeting with EBU Timed Text, Feb 1 2019
         5. [9]TTML in RTP IETF submission
         6. [10]WebVTT status
     * [11]Summary of Action Items
     * [12]Summary of Resolutions
     __________________________________________________________

   <nigel> scribe: nigel

This meeting

   Nigel: Today we have one issue marked for agenda for TTML
   Profile Registry.
   ... TTWG Future Reqs if there's anything to cover,
   ... F2F meetings next week
   ... TTML in RTP IETF submission
   ... Is there any other business, or any specific points to
   raise?
   ... I didn't have reason to add WebVTT to the agenda before,
   but there's been some discussion on
   ... the reflector today, so we can add it if that would help?

   Gary: Yes, we can cover WebVTT please.

   Nigel: OK

   group: [nothing more for the agenda]

TTML Profile Registry w3c/tt-profile-registry#58 Fix spec reference
for etx2 to point to EBU-TT 1.1

   github: [13]https://github.com/w3c/tt-profile-registry/pull/58


     [13] https://github.com/w3c/tt-profile-registry/pull/58


   <cyril> scribe: cyril

   nigel: PR to fix etx2
   ... I raised it, andreas reviewed it, open for 13days
   ... it's ready for the editors to merge

   <nigel> SUMMARY: Editors to merge tomorrow at the earliest
   assuming no new objections

TTWG Future requirements

   nigel: Is there anything specific to discuss?
   ... there has been some discussion on embedded images
   ... it's fine offline
   ... no comment on that point

Joint f2f meeting with EBU Timed Text, Feb 1 2019

   nigel: I have updated the agenda
   ... we need some time on WebVTT
   ... I am not sure what the best time would be

   gkatsev: day 1 would be good

   cyril: If the discussions on the requirements I raised could be
   discussed at a convenient time for me
   ... like 4pm geneva time

   nigel: day 1 is mainly those requirements, TTML2,
   modularization ...
   ... live demo as part of the PTS event
   ... and the WebVTT implementation report
   ... day 2 in the morning is the joint meeting about live ttml
   ... and how we handle EBU defining semantics
   ... like multiRowAlign but other contributions
   ... we need to think about what the options are
   ... if you have any other topic let me know

TTML in RTP IETF submission

   nigel: we had a bit of feedback from Mike
   ... my colleague James just updated a new draft

   <nigel> [14]RTP Payload for TTML Timed Text

     [14] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-sandford-payload-rtp-ttml/


   nigel: one of the thing that generated discussion is the media
   type definition
   ... there seems to be a best practice IETF document saying that
   you should include the media type registration for the payload
   format
   ... that explains why the draft copies it
   ... that's a bit bizarre (to me, personally)
   ... but it seems a recommended practice
   ... the change control now says W3C has change control over
   this specification [i.e. the media type registration]
   ... there has been a review/comments from members of the IETF
   group as well
   ... it's a good sign, has momentum

WebVTT status

   nigel: gary and thierry have been discussing this

   gkatsev: the status is that unless there is progress on the
   spec, it will be removed from the charter and not added back
   soon
   ... my question is what would constitute progress

   tmichel: the question is not really about the progress on the
   spec, because it's at CR and stable
   ... the issue is really about the implementation report
   ... I've looked at wpt.fyi
   ... I agree that for APIs, most of the tests pass 80%
   ... but the rendering is at about 1% or 2% close to zero
   ... it needs to be run manually
   ... I discussed with Philippe
   ... we need a proper implementation report
   ... showing things are implemented twice
   ... if we don't progress to PR, it's unlikely that it will stay
   in the charter
   ... if the implementation report progresses, the transition to
   PR should be ok

   gkatsev: I'm actually working on going through the rendering
   tests across browsers

   tmichel: I've done a bit too
   ... my conclusion is that Chrome it was good, Edge was bad and
   FF was so and so
   ... I didn't test Safari

   gkatsev: Safari is pretty good as well

   tmichel: we need to know where we are

   gkatsev: that is what I'm working on and will have results next
   week

   tmichel: you have to know the past and that the efforts have
   been slowing down, so thank you for joining the group and
   putting efforts

   gkatsev: I totally understand
   ... I would like to see it through if we can

   nigel: one question I have is: how would you establish what
   counts as a feature?
   ... as far as I know, WebVTT does not have a list of features
   in the spec
   ... TTML has it but a lot of other specs don't
   ... what's your approach Gary?

   gkatsev: the way they set it up in WPT is that each test is a
   feature
   ... the rendering tests have standard cues, or 2 cues
   overlapping
   ... it seems that the tests cover a pretty wide variety of
   "features"
   ... for example has a separate file per unicode characters

   nigel: if each test is a feature, how do you assess
   completeness of the testing vs the spec?

   gkatsev: as Silvia said, Apple funded the development of the
   tests based on the spec
   ... I'm assuming it's fairly complete
   ... but I would need to verify that
   ... but it seems the big and important parts are covered

   nigel: it's fair to say that there is always a bit of judgment
   from the group on what features are and on the coverage
   ... if you do that review and see areas are weaker, it would be
   good to bring that to the group

   atai2: could you check if after the tests have been completed,
   if there were changes to the spec

   gkatsev: yes, I can check when the last change to the spec was
   and the last change to the tests was
   ... I doubt there was substantive change to the spec after the
   tests have been done

   atai2: that would be good to review it

   nigel: anything else on webvtt?

   gkatsev: not for now

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

   [End of minutes]
     __________________________________________________________


    Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by
    David Booth's [15]scribe.perl version 1.154 ([16]CVS log)
    $Date: 2019/01/24 16:47:07 $

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

     [16] 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.

---------------------