- 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