- From: Nigel Megitt <nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk>
- Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2019 16:50:40 +0000
- To: TTWG <public-tt@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <D86F9D51.3B8B3%nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk>
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. ---------------------
Received on Thursday, 24 January 2019 16:51:11 UTC