- From: Nigel Megitt <nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk>
- Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2019 16:22:27 +0000
- To: Timed Text Working Group <public-tt@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <D9565B1B.499C9%nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk>
Thanks all for attending todays TTWG meeting. Minutes can be found in HTML format at https://www.w3.org/2019/07/18-tt-minutes.html Please note I will not be able to attend and Chair next weeks meeting please let me know by 1600 UTC tomorrow if you would like to step in and chair, otherwise I will cancel the call next week. Those minutes in text format: [1]W3C [1] https://www.w3.org/ Timed Text Working Group Teleconference 18 July 2019 [2]Agenda. [3]IRC log. [2] https://github.com/w3c/ttwg/issues/48 [3] https://www.w3.org/2019/07/18-tt-irc Attendees Present Andreas, Atsushi, Cyril, Gary, Glenn, Nigel, Pierre Regrets none Chair Nigel Scribe cyril Contents * [4]Meeting minutes 1. [5]this meeting 2. [6]WebVTT 3. [7]TTML2 4. [8]Improve interoperability of non-negative-real and xs:decimal. ttml2#943 5. [9]Remove xml:base and @condition from chunk. ttml2#961 6. [10]TPAC Planning * [11]Summary of resolutions Meeting minutes this meeting nigel: we are still missing Mike so we cannot talk about profile registry cyril: but I don't think we need to discuss it, I have an action glenn: I prefer to have a proposal and then discuss based on it nigel: we will discuss progress towards CR for WebVTT gkatsev: yes, there is some progress nigel: 2 issues on TTML 2 that I think need discussion we can discuss the region-timing test I put charter status update if he joins TPAC planning also is on the agenda any other business ? glenn: I'd like to go over PR 1096 nigel: I'm aware that you are waiting for feedback ok if we have time nigel: the review of PR is a bit difficult and we are working on that WebVTT gkatsev: the big thing that we last discussed was interop in parsing of region lines spec says integer, Safari and Firefox do different things I spoke with FF and they are fine with rounding so I have a change for that borrowed from the HTML spec Silvia approved it if any body has feedback I have updated the snapshot for at-risk it should be reviewed <gkatsev> [12]update region line parsing [12] https://github.com/w3c/webvtt/pull/470 <gkatsev> [13]new snapshot [13] https://github.com/w3c/webvtt/pull/460 nigel: PR preview does not seem to work but there is a link in 460 gkatsev: maybe because it's a change to the archive <plh> 45211 nigel: process-wise we will review those and when there is consensus, merge them and propose new CR is that the plan? gkatsev: yes the CR stuff is in the snapshot #460 but because there are changes that we want to make permanently, I created a separate PR for the main spec nigel: those changes from 470 are also in 460 ? gkatsev: yes TTML2 nigel: we'll cover the issues first 943 ? Improve interoperability of non-negative-real and xs:decimal. ttml2#943 <nigel> github: [14]https://github.com/w3c/ttml2/issues/943 [14] https://github.com/w3c/ttml2/issues/943 nigel: this issue is about allowing zero point to be valid it is not at the moment glenn's proposal is to permit it there is a PR for this glenn: I restarted the original PR that had been done last year I updated based on the current master nigel: this means that a previous non-conformant document would become conformant glenn: technically yes but it was never the intention to make that non-conformant <nigel> [15]xs:decimal definition [15] https://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-2/#decimal cyril: is '0.' allowed in xs:decimal? cyril: it seems that it is allowed according to section "3.2.3.1 Lexical representation" nigel: but the fact that the . is the last character is a bit confusing gkatsev: but it says that trailing 0 are optional glenn: we changed the schema since then to use xs:string that change was based on the comment of July 21, last year we just need to widen the expression for non negative real nigel: this change makes non negative real, the + becomes a *? glenn: no it adds a new line you need the full stop to denote it's a real number nigel: ok, it makes sense the idea of making non negative real coincident with xs:decimal makes sense it makes it easier to write the schema seems like a good change to me cyril: is it affecting only gain and pan? nigel: a lot of things lengths, gain, pan, ... pitch, percentage uses number a lot of things would be affected by this pal: I'm looking at ttval so now non-negative real always has a dot but not a dot by itself nigel: it's good to look at implementation just checking EBU-TT impl, 1. would not match, but 1.0 would pal: it seems ttval would reject 0. but I need to check nigel: it might make some existing implementations non conformant I'm beginning to think it's a problem glenn: there is no requirement to backport it to TTML1 it would potentially make validation tools not implementing 2nd ed more restrictive not sure what the roll out status of TTML2 in the industry but that would improve the status of interop nigel: that would be a change for IMSC 1.1 also cyril: I would say we shouldn't do syntactic changes unless it's broken pal: if we have several such changes, we could accumulate them and wait it would make it easier to include this one glenn: I'm not sure I agree that it's a breaking change nigel: it's not a document breaking change, but an implementation breaking change cyril: I think people should look at their implementations and we can take a decision based on that nigel: if this would be the only syntactical change, then it might not be worth glenn: we already approved some changes cyril: it would be good to have a list of those glenn: we changed the content body to add audio nigel: summary: group to study implementation impact and add review comments pal: and if we do it, we should have a test for that Remove xml:base and @condition from chunk. ttml2#961 <nigel> github: [16]https://github.com/w3c/ttml2/issues/961 [16] https://github.com/w3c/ttml2/issues/961 nigel: a year ago, we discussed xml:base on the chunk element with no apparent use actually, xml:base is used to process condition so it was proposed to remove condition assuming positions haven't changed, it's to remove both, on the purpose that they do not serve any purpose glenn: the PR that I raised is a resurrection of the one last year there is a significant difference in putting condition on chunk vs. source cyril: would there be an interop problem if I used them? glenn: it's quite dangerous, and you should not do that I think that was an error when we authored it nigel: is it safe to say that there are other ways to do the same thing? like putting condition on something else glenn: yes you could have a multi-entry source I could dream-up use cases, not obvious that might use that but I'm pretty convinced that it's dangerous, security impact because you cannot decode the bytes until presentation time and so cannot determine that you have a valid resource cyril: I don't have a strong opinion on this, as we have not implemented it but we should refrain from making changes unless it's broken we could add a note without making changes glenn: my claim is that it is broken nigel: despite my comment in the issue, I think I've changed my mind and agree with Glenn if you are worried of buffer overflow, that can happen with chunks or sources, regardless of whether condition is used pal: I don't have a strong opinion on this cyril: chances that people have authored documents with this feature is low and it would not require people to change their implementation so I'm fine with it pal: we really need tests maybe that will limit us nigel: right, we should have tests with PR asking changes because it will speed up CR processing pal: and helps people testing their implementation nigel: I'm hearing consensus to approve it and write tests for it pal: please include a test before merging the PR nigel: yes, good rule glenn: tests are not in the same repo pal: we could link PRs glenn: I have no problem creating tests for these Resolved: we approve the PR and write tests for it TPAC Planning nigel: in the past, our team contact had prepared a wiki page with draft agenda topics there is also a proposal to have a joint meeting with CSS WG and there is an issue on the TTWG repo #52 <nigel> [17]Discussion points for CSS WG at TPAC 2019 [17] https://github.com/w3c/ttwg/issues/52 nigel: gathering discussion points for CSS WG at TPAC 2019 Atsushi could you create a similar looking wiki page atsushi: we should have a page for last year is it ok to do something like that? nigel: yes <atsushi> [18]2018 [18] https://www.w3.org/wiki/TimedText/tpac2018 <nigel> [19]Action for Atushi to Create a TPAC 2019 wiki page [19] https://github.com/w3c/ttwg/issues/58 pal: I'll be there only tuesday to thursday nigel: I'm not here next week unless someone wants to chair, i'll cancel next week <nigel> log: [20]https://www.w3.org/2019/07/18-tt-irc [20] https://www.w3.org/2019/07/18-tt-irc Summary of resolutions 1. [21]we approve the PR and write tests for it 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, 18 July 2019 16:22:51 UTC