- From: Nigel Megitt <nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk>
- Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2019 15:55:59 +0000
- To: TTWG <public-tt@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <D93AA551.479FB%nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk>
Thanks all for attending todays TTWG meeting. Minutes can be found in HTML format at https://www.w3.org/2019/06/27-tt-minutes.html
In text format:
[1]W3C
[1] https://www.w3.org/
Timed Text Working Group Teleconference
27 June 2019
[2]Agenda. [3]IRC log.
[2] https://github.com/w3c/ttwg/issues/44
[3] https://www.w3.org/2019/06/27-tt-irc
Attendees
Present
Andreas, Gary, Nigel, Philippe
Regrets
Cyril, Glenn, Pierre
Chair
Nigel
Scribe
nigel
Contents
* [4]Meeting minutes
1. [5]This meeting
2. [6]WebVTT
3. [7]AOB - Charter status update
4. [8]AOB - Chinese IG new requirements
5. [9]Meeting close
Meeting minutes
Log: [10]https://www.w3.org/2019/06/27-tt-irc
[10] https://www.w3.org/2019/06/27-tt-irc
This meeting
Nigel: Today we have WebVTT, and then AOB only, there were no
issues marked for the agenda
where the right people would be present.
In AOB, we have Charter status update and Philippe wants to
tell us about something from the Chinese IG.
Any other other business?
WebVTT
Gary: There is a new snapshot of the WebVTT repo that Silvia
approved, which adds
the additional at risk items from the current implementation
report,
and also swaps the unsigned long to be a regular long.
Philippe: Just want to make sure we're doing the right things.
Following the CfC which didn't pass, I would have expected
open issues for all the comments
raised during the CfC, and then address those comments either
by doing what Gary is doing or other actions.
Did we make sure to record as issues all of the comments
raised during the CfC?
Gary: I don't think all were made issues.
The big three are issues.
Philippe: It would be good to raise all of them as issues even
if to be raised in v.next.
You should avoid publishing a CR, then getting a comment when
we want to move to PR that something
was not addressed.
Do things by the book.
Raise all the issues, not typos, but anything else.
Apparently some decision was made about relative importance.
I want a record.
Issues is the easiest way.
In 3 months we can see what we did.
Nigel: Some of the decisions are recorded in minutes, it would
be fine to copy those into issues also, for clarity and ease of
reference.
Philippe: If you guys feel happy I'm not going to take a strong
position.
Gary: I can go through the current things and open issues
before we accept the current snapshot.
Philippe: We're not here just to do bureaucracy of course, it's
important to open issues when it isn't clear.
Gary: Good to have issues so we do not forget about them.
Philippe: We can move to Rec with open issues if we decide to
defer them
For things related to the IR I would not necessarily expect
to find them as issues.
You're making choices on the spec, let's make sure that the
WebVTT CG is clear what is happening.
[11]TTWG #51 for Gary to check issues are opened.
[11] https://github.com/w3c/ttwg/issues/51
Nigel: Any contentious issues?
Gary: A couple we may want to discuss further, we've definitely
talked about the big ones.
As I open up issues I'll note the ones worth discussing and
bring it up on the next call.
Nigel: Let me know agenda items by Tuesday so I can add them to
the weekly call agenda please.
Philippe: I'm assuming the plan is to publish a CR and then a
month later attempt again to move to PR?
Gary: Yes
Philippe: Great, hopefully this time we will have got it right.
AOB - Charter status update
Nigel: What's the status please?
Philippe: I haven't made progress. The Charter has not gone to
W3M yet.
You should feel free to insult me if I don't get it done!
I am the blocker, I apologise for not getting it done.
It won't take me long, I've been struggling for time.
Nigel: You're asking me to insult you?
Philippe: Yes
Nigel: Er, your brain is full of flies. [said with humour]
OK, thanks for the update, please do try to progress it.
Philippe: OK
AOB - Chinese IG new requirements
Philippe: Here's a good new captioning issue.
Talking to the staff member looking at Chinese requirements,
they are potentially looking at a new captioning format!
I wonder what we can do to prevent it from happening.
Apparently there is a style of captioning used in Japan in
China called dan-maku
They are claiming in their document that neither TTML nor
WebVTT supports such a thing.
<plh> [12]https://w3c-proposal-incubation.github.io/
danmaku-proposal/
[12] https://w3c-proposal-incubation.github.io/danmaku-proposal/
<plh> [13]https://www.w3.org/2019/03/
23-chinese-web-media-summary.en.html#item10
[13] https://www.w3.org/2019/03/23-chinese-web-media-summary.en.html#item10
<plh> [14]https://www.w3.org/2019/04/09-ac-minutes.html#item01
[14] https://www.w3.org/2019/04/09-ac-minutes.html#item01
Philippe: The danmaku proposal is in Chinese.
They mean commentary subtitles.
Looking at two potential ways to address the issue.
1. Create a new captioning format.
2. Create some HTML extensions to do that thing
My question for this group is do we care? If we care, are
they right when they say danmaku is not supported?
If they are correct, do we want to address the issue?
Do we need to create a communication channel with them?
Nigel: What is this about? I don't know what we're talking
about.
Gary: It's a way to put comments directly on a place in the
video.
Nigel: You can do positioning in WebVTT and TTML already, with
some issues about viewports vs vision.
Andreas: I spoke with Angel in Quebec at the AC meeting.
I wrote an email to Pierre and Nigel and Angel addressing
this and saying it is interesting work
and it is important that you provide the requirements to the
group.
I made clear in the thread we do not want a new captioning
format.
We did not continue this discussion.
First I think it is very important that their work feeds back
to existing WGs
especially on this part. A more general question was
discussed at the AC meeting.
If there is a Chinese IG it is good that local members can
connect but they need to make it
accessible to the rest of the W3C ecosystem. It is a general
issue to keep in mind.
On this issue it is definitely important that whatever they
do we have a version that is accessible for other members
and it would be good if they sent it to this group so we can
assess the requirements.
Philippe: Thank you for reminding me it was mentioned at the AC
meeting.
I can help put pressure on the Chinese IG to document their
use cases and requirements no later than TPAC
so we can invite them in the room to present their use cases
and requirements for danmaku
Nigel: That would help
-> [15]https://www.w3.org/2019/Talks/ac-slides/cwig/
cwig-progress.pdf
[15] https://www.w3.org/2019/Talks/ac-slides/cwig/cwig-progress.pdf
Nigel: Angel's slides describe this better.
It looks like they want to position and synchronise and
animate text and that is possible in TTML2 already.
Philippe: They want browser support.
Nigel: They can use TTML2 in browsers if they bring in
additional code.
We can't require browser makers to do work.
Philippe: I agree. They can influence browser makers to
implement code so we could tell them to use TTML2.
If they are willing to put resources in it then they can do
something.
I will tell them to focus on the use cases and requirements.
We should set ourselves a timeline of "by TPAC have both
communities in the same room"
Nigel: That sounds like a good plan.
Just for completeness, IGs cannot make Technical Reports can
they?
Philippe: They can make IG Notes out of the patent policy but
they cannot make Recommendations.
That doesn't mean we can ignore it.
Andreas: From my recollection their process was they wanted to
discuss and elaborate and work out what they need
and my impression was that they not only will gather
requirements before bringing it to the membership but also
have it in a spec-like draft. I think that is not something
an IG should do.
Philippe: They are going to do it if they want to. We cannot
prevent them.
We cannot use the Process to stop them!
It is good this is happening in W3C.
Andreas: It is interesting to find a way to deal with it in a
way that helps international standardisation.
Philippe: Absolutely. We should get their use cases and
requirements as clear as possible and push them gently in the
right direction.
Andreas: In my view this issue has a high priority, to avoid
another captioning format, especially because of our
experience.
Andreas: A lot of people in industry lost a lot of time because
of this even if they are not interested in captioning.
In the long run a lot of people will have more work, which is
not what we want.
I agree it is important to be delicate, but I think the
priority to avoid it is high.
Nigel: I agree with that.
Philippe: I totally agree as well.
Feel free to ask for a report from me about the Chinese IG
and danmaku in the next couple of months.
By the way Atsushi from Japan is a new team contact joining
soon so I may ask him to make sure that the WG
understands the use cases and requirements.
Nigel: I will ask Atsushi to introduce himself.
Philippe: Or wait until he can join a call. He could not join
today.
Nigel: I have no regrets showing for July 4 and we don't
normally cancel the call but if there are so many regrets
that is is not viable then I will cancel it.
Gary: I could join next week but prefer not to.
Andreas: Regrets from me for next week - I will add them to the
agenda issue.
Nigel: Thanks for raising that Philippe.
Meeting close
Nigel: We've completed our agenda, so let's adjourn. Thank you!
[adjourns meeting]
Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by
Bert Bos's [16]scribe.perl version Mon Apr 15 13:11:59 2019
UTC, a reimplementation of David Booth's [17]scribe.perl. See
[18]history.
[16] https://w3c.github.io/scribe2/scribedoc.html
[17] https://dev.w3.org/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
[18] https://github.com/w3c/scribe2/commits/master/scribe.perl
Received on Thursday, 27 June 2019 15:56:25 UTC