{Minutes} TTWG Meeting 2019-06-13

Thanks all for attending today’s TTWG meeting. Minutes can be found in HTML format at https://www.w3.org/2019/06/13-tt-minutes.html

We made one resolution regarding WebVTT:

Resolved: Mark any remaining features with tests that don't have at least 2 passes as at risk

We also resolved in the course of the conversation that the proposal to request transition to PR cannot go ahead at present due to the presence of at least one mandatory feature with a referenced source that is not at the appropriate maturity level and appears to have no implementation or tests. The CfC to request transition to PR is effectively cancelled pending removal or implementation of the affected features.

The intent of the group here is to reduce the scope of the specification down to what can be recommended according to the W3C Process and consider re-adding such removed features into future versions.

The next steps are to work on tests and implementations and mark as at risk any features that cannot be demonstrated to pass the CR exit criteria following that work. My understanding is that this means publishing another CR prior to trying to go to PR again.

Those minutes in text format:


   [1]W3C

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

                Timed Text Working Group Teleconference

13 June 2019

   [2]Agenda. [3]IRC log.

      [2] https://github.com/w3c/ttwg/issues/42
      [3] https://www.w3.org/2019/06/13-tt-irc

Attendees

   Present
          Andreas, Cyril, Gary, Glenn, Nigel, Pierre

   Regrets

   Chair
          Nigel

   Scribe
          Cyril, nigel

Contents

     * [4]Meeting minutes
         1. [5]this meeting
         2. [6]WebVTT transition to PR
         3. [7]Clarify use of 'applies to' in style property
            definition tables (ttml2#1088).
         4. [8]text-decoration
         5. [9]text-emphasis
         6. [10]font selection strategy
         7. [11]font variant
         8. [12]text combine application
         9. [13]Emphasize null style semantics in context of ruby
            container spans
        10. [14]Meeting close
     * [15]Summary of resolutions

Meeting minutes

   <nigel> Log: [16]https://www.w3.org/2019/06/13-tt-irc

     [16] https://www.w3.org/2019/06/13-tt-irc

this meeting

   nigel: 2h meeting today
   … we've got comments/questions following CfC on WebVTT
   … a bunch of issues on TTML2
   … an outstanding profile registry issue
   … and an outstanding question for Philippe about the ICC
   profile
   … lastly update on charter status dependent on Philippe
   … in AOB we could discuss Karaoke
   … and live and audio description
   … if time allows

WebVTT transition to PR

   nigel: plh sent a CfC last week
   … one more week to go
   … people have been looking at it
   … queries have been coming regarding failing tests
   … 1st one is text-wrap: balance

   <nigel> [17]Thread re text-wrap: balance;

     [17] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tt/2019Jun/0020.html

   nigel: I noticed that there is a must requirement in the spec
   … but there does not seem to be any implementation nor tests
   … I'm struggling how we can progress on this one

   Cyril: What is the policy re referencing other docs not at CR
   stage? text-wrap: balance is at WD.

   nigel: in the past we have avoided from TTWG specs normative
   references to documents that are not in PR
   … we haven't normatively referenced something that is at WD
   stage

   glenn: we definitely have not referenced WD or ED
   … CRs are questionable
   … would require justifications
   … there have been some CRs that have become the status quo
   … part of the problem is that membership of W3C has not given
   its opinion before PR

   cyril: either we do an exception or change it

   gkatsev: I've been working under the assumption that if WebVTT
   does not proceed to PR it will be removed from the charter
   … I would not have any problem removing it and going through
   another CR if it would be kept in the charter

   pal: that seems the logical thing to do

   gkatsev: removal from charter is my major concern

   pal: your concern is that if remove this feature, it would
   delay publication and risk being removed from the charter

   gkatsev: yes

   pal: where did we say that?

   nigel: it's a WG resolution
   … that said, the tone that we've had from Philippe is that we'd
   rather delay the charter to have WebVTT in
   … the charter update is more for the scope update
   … we could delay the charter update

   pal: the current charter expires May 2020

   nigel: yes, but we've decide to proceed with documents that are
   not currently in charter
   … so that would be annoying to have those documents delayed

   pal: so the concern is about a resolution that we passed

   <nigel> [18]TTWG Charter repo

     [18] https://github.com/w3c/charter-timed-text

   nigel: the resolution was passed long before Gary joined
   … there was no active editor, ...

   pal: my preference is to treat WebVTT like any other spec, no
   more no less
   … and to proceed along those lines

   atai2: the goal should that we don't make our life harder with
   our own decisions
   … if we can amend/interpret our decision
   … then that leaves enough time to proceed and remove any
   feature that is not implemented
   … and follow the usual process

   nigel: 2 things going on
   … concern about the charter

   <Zakim> nigel, you wanted to check if we have consensus to
   remove the text-wrap: balance; feature

   nigel: and text-wrap: balance
   … do we have consensus about text-wrap: balance ?
   … there is no indication that I'm aware of that the CSS module
   will move on
   … we could get input from CSS
   … or we could remove the requirement and replace with something
   that is implemented

   gkatsev: it would be nice to know from the CSS WG what the
   state of the text module is
   … but even if they start implement it, the best choice is to
   remove it
   … and add it in a new version

   nigel: the proposal I would make is to ask CSS WG (Philippe)
   and simultaneously to prepare a PR to mark it at risk
   … any other proposal? objection?

   glenn: I just noticed that the text module was modified in ED 3
   days ago, so there is active work on it

   nigel: that may be a good sign, the last WD was a long time ago

   nigel: so we have consensus on what I proposed
   … we have then 2 actions: one on Philippe and one on Gary

   glenn: what is the dependency on the Text module?

   nigel: if you search for "text-wrap" you'll find it
   … level 4

   glenn: we should definitely not reference level 4

   <nigel> [19]Issue for marking this as at risk

     [19] https://github.com/w3c/webvtt/issues/455

   glenn: hasn't been modified since April, that's not too long
   ago

   glenn: balance is defined by the user agent
   … tex has an algorithm
   … but even you had support for it, it'd be hard to test
   … it would be reasonable for an implementation to say that its
   implementation of balance does not do any balancing

   nigel: filing the line until no more character can fit would
   work?

   glenn: yes

   <nigel> [20]Issue for plh to liaise with CSS WG

     [20] https://github.com/w3c/ttwg/issues/50

   nigel: next one is about text-combine-upright

   <nigel> [21]Email from Pierre about text-combine-upright

     [21] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tt/2019Jun/0025.html

   nigel: I haven't checked the status in WPT

   gkatsev: it is available in most browsers

   pal: but it's not demonstrated in the context of WebVTT, right?

   gkatsev: the test that is using this property is failing across
   all browsers currently

   pal: my concern is that in the past the group has gone through
   great lengths to make sure that every feature was implemented
   by 2 implementations
   … we should apply the same principle to all specifcations
   … we should have one set of criteria
   … if there is no 2 implementation, we should remove it and add
   it later on

   <nigel> [22]WPT for text-combine-upright

     [22] https://wpt.fyi/results/css/css-typed-om/the-stylepropertymap/properties/text-combine-upright.html?label=master&product=chrome[experimental]&product=edge&product=firefox[experimental]&product=safari[experimental]&aligned

   gkatsev: for me, the way it is in the spec it is not a feature
   in itself
   … it is a property of the CSS feature extension
   … and there are tests demonstrating the CSS feature extension
   … to me the CSS feature extension is working and missing just
   an extra property

   pal: but the test is failing

   nigel: could we ask Apple to have that in a dev build?

   gkatsev: I can have a look

   nigel: on WPT the text-combine-upright is only passing in
   Chrome and Edge
   … so we might struggle to see 2 independent implementations
   that pass it
   … that might be another reason to mark it at risk

   gkatsev: I think the prefix versions are fine
   … are we ok with grouping the standard version and
   vendor-prefixed one?

   nigel: I don't know
   … if an implementation would map the standard version to the
   vendor-prefixed one to make it pass, that should be fine
   … what wouldn't work would be to use the vendor-prefixed one
   and testing that because that is outside the spec

   gkatsev: I'm not positive on that
   … the way that CSS has been working
   … is that once it's get closer to the standard version, it's
   equivalent
   … it's up to the group to decide
   … but all decisions would be correct
   … personally, I would prefer to allow vendor prefixes

   nigel: it actually depends on the vendor commitment to replace
   vendor prefixes
   … I would have to dig a bit more to see what's acceptable

   pal: does the W3C even have rules or guidelines on vendor
   prefixes?

   nigel: there is an accepted practice
   … I have not seen anything written down
   … I've seen implementations behind flaggs

   pal: my personal take is to say that if you had to use vendor
   prefix to demonstrate interop is awkward
   … because a user would have to magically add the prefix for a
   given implementation

   nigel: that would be demonstration of non-interop
   … a single document would not work

   pal: because the CSS is embedded in the document

   pal: do the prefixes hold up for ever?
   … do they go away after a while?
   … you wouldn't want somebody to create documents that work
   today with prefixes but not in 5 years

   gkatsev: what you do in WebVTT is the same as in CSS
   … you put both: standard and prefixed

   pal: got it

   pal: caniuse.com does not show results for text-combine-upright
   … my recommendation is to get an initial version of WebVTT out
   … and put at risk things that don't pass tests
   … when browsers implement the feature, just update the spec
   … that's simple, less risky and closest to reality

   nigel: it looks like marking it at-risk is simple to do

   pal: and easy to add back

   nigel: from an alignment perspective, we would have something
   in IMSC1.1 and not in WebVTT

   pal: yes, but that was not in IMSC1.0

   gkatsev: the plan is to have all features that are marked at
   risk and removed be put in a new WD so that browsers can
   reference that

   nigel: your proposal Pierre is to mark text-combine-upright at
   risk?

   pal: yes

   nigel: any objection?
   … we do have consensus
   … I'm creating an issue and assigning it to Gary

   <nigel> [23]Mark text-combine-upright as at risk

     [23] https://github.com/w3c/webvtt/issues/456

   pal: as a follow-up question, are there any other feature that
   failed to have 2 implementations?

   gkatsev: as far as I remember there are no other features who
   all of their tests are failing

   pal: what's setting position?

   gkatsev: I think it's vertical or horizontal

   pal: the IR shows only one implementation

   gkatsev: that is probably passing in vtt.js

   pal: I would suggest doing the same thing for tests that don't
   pass
   … if you go through that table and it says 1, if you can tweak
   vtt.js then we would be fine

   nigel: there was an action from last week
   … we had discussions about long and int
   … gary you were to make a test for int
   … how are we doing with that

   gkatsev: it's on my list

   nigel: it's in progress

   nigel: I don't think that the CfC can go ahead
   … we have to in the CR loop again based on the discussion today

   pal: it can be fast

   nigel: yes

   cyril: can we get an agreement that everything that's red
   should be marked at risk?

   pal: yes

   nigel: I agree

   gkatsev: marking everything red at risk is simple

   pal: if later on it works, you can remove the 'at risk'

   gkatsev: not sure about the int vs. long

   cyril: what's the likelihood of having 4 browsers change when
   they are already interoperable?

   nigel: I think we should adopt Cyril's suggestion
   … because the requirement for long was not very strong

   gkatsev: there is an issue of alignment with other specs

   cyril: the proposal is to mark at risk all the features that
   are red in the IR

   nigel: we also need to change the line attribute to be unsigned
   int?

   gkatsev: unsigned int would pass

   nigel: any objection to changing to unsigned int?
   … no objection, we should resolve to do that
   … I'm creating an issue and assigning it to Gary

   <nigel> [24]Change line attribute to unsigned int

     [24] https://github.com/w3c/webvtt/issues/457

   nigel: the second proposal is to mark at risk everything that
   does not have 2 passing tests
   … any objection?
   … none
   … ok, we'll do a new CR publication

   Resolved: Mark any remaining features with tests that don't
   have at least 2 passes as at risk

   nigel: that's everything on the WebVTT agenda topic

Clarify use of 'applies to' in style property definition tables
(ttml2#1088).

   github: [25]https://github.com/w3c/ttml2/pull/1089

     [25] https://github.com/w3c/ttml2/pull/1089

   nigel: this one is about 'applies to'
   … we're looking at pull 1089
   … this PR adds a note

   pal: that should be part of the broader discussion
   … in isolation it makes sense
   … the real issue is what do we write in "applies to"

   glenn: are you asking us to approve or not the whole
   collections of PR? as a whole?
   … the intent was dividing them because they are orthogonal

   nigel: if we can't agree on what 'applies to' mean, we cannot
   move on

   pal: depending on the context of applies to the meaning might
   change

   nigel: if we know what 'applies to' should mean, then we can
   put it
   … the current proposal says make it say what CSS does

   nigel: are you agreeing?

   pal: I think we should assume that that's the case and move
   forward
   … let's not merge now

   glenn: I think the chair needs to make a determination on how
   to move forward

   nigel: we have agreement can we move forward?

   glenn: Pierre has put a blocker for process reasons and I don't
   agree with

   nigel: moving forward means having a common ground
   … is there any objection to adding this text?
   … hearing nothing, we have agreement in principle

   glenn: before you move on, we have 2 approvals on this PR but a
   blocker
   … we need Pierre to remove his blocker

   nigel: I'm sure Pierre will remove his blocker

   github: [26]https://github.com/w3c/ttml2/pull/1079

     [26] https://github.com/w3c/ttml2/pull/1079

   github: [27]https://github.com/w3c/ttml2/pull/1089

     [27] https://github.com/w3c/ttml2/pull/1089

   github: [28]https://github.com/w3c/ttml2/pull/1079

     [28] https://github.com/w3c/ttml2/pull/1079

text-decoration

   github: [29]https://github.com/w3c/ttml2/pull/1079

     [29] https://github.com/w3c/ttml2/pull/1079

   pal: I have the same position as on the previous PR, the
   proposed text is fine
   … in fact I integrated it in 1071
   … same as before for me

   nigel: any objection to this text change?
   … none
   … we resolve to accept this change

text-emphasis

   github: [30]https://github.com/w3c/ttml2/pull/1081

     [30] https://github.com/w3c/ttml2/pull/1081

   nigel: my comment there was on 1080
   … I was worried that inline areas that are not glyph areas
   would be affected
   … but you convinced me
   … so I don't have any objection on this one
   … anyone objects to this?
   … none
   … we've all agreed to this

   glenn: can you remove your blocker?

   nigel: let's work out removal of blockers later

   github, end topic

font selection strategy

   github: [31]https://github.com/w3c/ttml2/pull/1083

     [31] https://github.com/w3c/ttml2/pull/1083

   pal: same as before

   nigel: any objection to adding this text?
   … I think not
   … everybody is happy with this in principle
   … we agree to accept that change

font variant

   github-bot: [32]https://github.com/w3c/ttml2/pull/1085

     [32] https://github.com/w3c/ttml2/pull/1085

   <github-bot> cyril, Sorry, I don't understand that command. Try
   'help'.

   github: [33]https://github.com/w3c/ttml2/pull/1085

     [33] https://github.com/w3c/ttml2/pull/1085

   pal: same for me

   nigel: I don't have an objection
   … anyone has an objection?
   … none
   … we're happy to accept this

text combine application

   github: [34]https://github.com/w3c/ttml2/pull/1087

     [34] https://github.com/w3c/ttml2/pull/1087

   pal: same here

   nigel: there was a typo that was fixed
   … any objection?
   … no objection
   … we agree to approve it

Emphasize null style semantics in context of ruby container spans

   github: [35]https://github.com/w3c/ttml2/pull/1101

     [35] https://github.com/w3c/ttml2/pull/1101

   nigel: I summarized it
   … it adds a note to all the "applies to"
   … my summary of the debate is whether we need to do it
   normatively or informatively
   … Pierre how do you feel about that at the moment?

   pal: I feel like day 1
   … the practice is to list what a property applies to in this
   line
   … and in the prose to add text
   … I don't see any reasons to not list the span that it does not
   apply to

   nigel: you don't see any difference in making it
   normative/informative

   pal: the practice is so loose in TTML2 that it does not make
   any difference

   nigel: can you live with the proposal?

   pal: it could be expressed more clearly

   nigel: glenn, if we said "spans except ..." with an editorial
   way

   glenn: 1) a span that serves as a ruby container, base
   container or text container is not an element
   … it is no different than a span that is empty
   … we do not say these properties do not apply to spans that are
   empty
   … 2) a span that serves a ruby container is not an element by
   the definition that we use or that CSS uses
   … until we introduced ruby align and ruby position, we did not
   have any case that called out a qualified version of an element
   … we went off-track in my opinion when I wrote that text
   … if we had not done so (I believe it was an error) we would
   not have that conversation
   … 3) there is no normative impact and it's not testable to say
   that it does not apply to
   … .. so it's strictly an informative advice for the reader
   … that we can deal with through a note
   … it's not different to other parts of the spec where you have
   to follow the text
   … 4) the issue about optimization
   … we don't document premature optimizations that could turn out
   to be false
   … out of the 18 properties that Pierre wanted to modify I've
   determined that 3 do apply
   … the other 15 are somewhat arbitrary
   … because for example color could follow the same logic
   … my original opinion was not to write anything
   … the note is a compromise
   … I do not accept Pierre's proposal
   … we already have a definition of ruby container in the text,
   defined in 10-1

   <Zakim> nigel, you wanted to say that elements are not
   necessarily only defined by their qualified name alone

   nigel: it seems reasonable to me to specify elements not only
   by name but by qualifying the selection
   … you say that CSS does not talk about qualified elements
   … but actually CSS uses whatever is meaningful even if it's not
   an element
   … there is a precedent in CSS
   … I take your point that there is no normative impact

   nigel: do these arguments work for you?

   pal: I'm all for finding a compromise
   … we are very close, because Glenn's latest proposal adds text
   to "applies to
   … we are in the right direction
   … if that link linked to a specific note not a generic one, and
   that note listed those elements to which the style property
   does not apply
   … that might be wordy but explicit and not ambiguous

   glenn: what I hear you are proposing is to copy the note 15
   times in the text with exact wording
   … or with just the name of the property substituted
   … we try to use generic languages
   … it creates a maintenance issue

   pal: I don't disagree, it's wordier
   … I'm trying to find a compromise

   nigel: why do we need those specific notes?

   pal: it has to be very clear for everybody whether or not by
   reading the applies to line it applies to or not
   … a generic note does not do that
   … just like unicodeBidi does not apply to div

   glenn: I definitely do not agree with the intent that pierre
   stated
   … that the applies to line be definitive and complete
   … with respect to the application semantics
   … I'm convinced that the information in the applies to line has
   to be taken in context of the full prose of each style
   … in XSL-FO appendix B.4
   … there is generic language
   … that says that further clarification may appear in the text

   <nigel> [[ For each property the formatting objects it applies
   to is listed. It should be noted, however, that for some
   formatting objects there are qualifications on applicability or
   values permitted. ]]

   glenn: that's why I'm disagreeing in part with Pierre's
   original premice

   pal: thanks for highlighting the crux of the issue
   … past practice in TTML and CSS has been to be exhaustive in
   the applies to line
   … that's the intention of my proposal
   … it's clear in CSS and TTML that that line has been exhaustive
   … e.g. unicodeBidi
   … div is not listed under unicodeBidi
   … because it cannot apply to div so it cannot be listed there

   pal: if glenn's note would list the exact properties that
   "might not" apply, that would work for me
   … I'm not fine with leaving a vague note

   glenn: I objected to that because of the maintenance effor

   Nigel: if you're not happy with the note propose a change

   Pierre: I've proposed alternate text in a separately maintained
   PR, or would accept a specific note on each
   … style property.

   Glenn: Here's a suggestion: if we put a note in each of those
   15 properties that points to the generic note and says
   … it applies to this specific property, would that satisfy you,
   and have the Applies to line point to that?

   Pierre: Yes, I think that would satisfy me. I don't like it
   editorially.

   Glenn: I'm proposing instead of the "See also" note I could add
   a note in each of the 15,
   … and I would say the generic note applies to this property.

   Pierre: Yes

   Glenn: That would give you something explicit in each of the
   properties

   Pierre: Yes and then the note can be more definite

   Glenn: I'll tweak this PR to make those changes and we'll see
   if we can accept that, and maybe all the related pull requests
   too.

   Pierre: Sounds good to me.

   Nigel: Thank you both for working constructively towards a
   solution.

Meeting close

   Nigel: We're out of time, thanks all.

   Glenn: Regrets for me for next week.

   Nigel: Let's try to move forward on GitHub on these.
   … [adjourns meeting]

Summary of resolutions

    1. [36]Mark any remaining features with tests that don't have
       at least 2 passes as at risk


    Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by
    Bert Bos's [37]scribe.perl version Mon Apr 15 13:11:59 2019
    UTC, a reimplementation of David Booth's [38]scribe.perl. See
    [39]history.

     [37] https://w3c.github.io/scribe2/scribedoc.html
     [38] https://dev.w3.org/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
     [39] https://github.com/w3c/scribe2/commits/master/scribe.perl

Received on Thursday, 13 June 2019 18:14:29 UTC