{Minutes} TTWG Meeting 2019-03-21

Thanks all for attending today’s TTWG meeting. Minutes can be found in HTML format at https://www.w3.org/2019/03/21-tt-minutes.html


In text format:

   [1]W3C


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


                Timed Text Working Group Teleconference

21 Mar 2019

   [2]Agenda

      [2] https://github.com/w3c/ttwg/issues/27


   See also: [3]IRC log

      [3] https://www.w3.org/2019/03/21-tt-irc


Attendees

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

   Regrets
          Thierry

   Chair
          nigel

   Scribe
          cyril, nigel

Contents

     * [4]Topics
         1. [5]this meeting
         2. [6]TTWG Charter
         3. [7]TTML Profile Registry Actions, Pull Requests and
            Issues
         4. [8]Clarify codecs parameter syntax requirements (#63).
            tt-profile-registry#69
         5. [9]WebVTT Implementation report
         6. [10]mark at-risk features in a new snapshot webvtt#449
         7. [11]TTML3 Pull Requests
         8. [12]sept F2F meetings
         9. [13]Liaisons to MPEG and VR-IF
        10. [14]AD CG
        11. [15]Meeting close.
     * [16]Summary of Action Items
     * [17]Summary of Resolutions
     __________________________________________________________

   <cyril> scribe: cyril

this meeting

   nigel: there is a lot to get through
   ... good to have 2 hours
   ... lots to discuss
   ... main topics will be charter
   ... TTML3 modules
   ... to make sure we have a consistent language
   ... some time for WebVTT
   ... actions to MPEG and VR-IF
   ... actions also to propose options for the Sept F2F meeting
   ... there are some PR for TTML3
   ... any AOB?

   glenn: some PRs on Profile Registry

TTWG Charter

   nigel: we have 4 PR to review

   <nigel> [18]Timed Text Charter Pull Requests

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


   nigel: the issue was to make sure the new requirements that we
   agreed, labelled requiring charter revisions, are supported in
   the charter
   ... there was live contribution
   ... from EBU
   ... current charter already says to consider things from EBU
   and other similar groups
   ... given that, we came to an agreement that we don't need a
   significant charter change
   ... so the PR does not need much change
   ... there is only one line in the scope section under TTML3
   ... the main part that needs to change is about supporting
   Audio Description
   ... there is a scope and deliverable section that points to the
   CG report
   ... the scope is publish a recommendation
   ... a profile of TTML for Audio Description

   atai2: on the first point, live streaming, we want to work on
   live contribution which is a bit different from streaming
   ... it should not be an alternative to HLS streaming

   nigel: agree, I'll add a comment to the PR
   ... back on Audio Description deliverable

   cyril: could the profile be of TTML3?

   nigel: It could be but all the features seem there in TTML2

   pal: we have to be careful
   ... we should reserve TTML3 for significant features that would
   impact conformance in a significant way
   ... because the timeline for TTML3 is not the same

   glenn: I agree the profile should be a TTML2, if it does not
   use TTML3 features

   pal: can the charter be silent?
   ... I'm concerned with the charter be restrictive

   glenn: I agree, the less we say the better

   nigel: this can be changed
   ... I'll omit TTML version number
   ... expected completion are intent but can be moved
   ... the other update is in coordination, adding ADCG
   ... any other comment?
   ... next one is "Increase scope to include maintenance of all
   Recommendations"
   ... the change is simple, be less specific
   ... about the versions of the spec to maintain
   ... comments?
   ... next one is "Update text re meeting schedule"
   ... the meeting schedule currently requires to meet at TPAC but
   we don't necessarily want that
   ... the new text says meeting at least once a year, usually at
   TPAC
   ... next "Add wording permitting TTML3 and a modular approach."
   ... there has been discussions in different places about the
   language we use here
   ... it seems that we've converged on the idea that TTML3 is a
   thing whose collective name is not really agreed, and each
   document is a specification
   ... some other specifications will be defining modules
   ... the changes proposed by glenn in TTML3 is a module registry
   ... we need to know if the module registry is a deliverable

   glenn: it would be the same as the profile registry, i.e. a WG
   note
   ... the registry is not the thing that pulls them together
   ... the registry will list the existing internal modules
   ... and serve as a list of external module

   pal: we are creating so much burocracy
   ... what problem are we trying to solve by having that in the
   charter
   ... I love the idea of modularization

   glenn: I agree we should say the minimum in the charter

   pal: for example modules could be done for a 2nd edition of
   TTML2

   nigel: I'm happy to make this vaguer

   glenn: it's good to inform AC members about the intent of the
   group but we don't want to have every line item cited here
   ... we need to find a balance

   nigel: what is the minimum we need to say?

   plh: I'm thinking ...
   ... I don't think there is a minimum

   pal: what does CSS do?

   nigel: it says they will publish modules
   ... it says CSS is a specification consisting of modules
   ... the snapshot says it gathers specifications

   pal: can we say the product of the group is a core
   specification, profiles and modules

   cyril: agree

   nigel: possibly

   plh: at the end of the day, the scope section defines the range
   of IP affected
   ... what this group is working on
   ... if it ends in one spec or ten specs
   ... it does not matter, unless some AC have strong feelings but
   they should be in this group

   nigel: ok, so let's try to go minimal
   ... do we even need to say we will publish TTML3?

   plh: not necessarily, not in the scope
   ... in the deliverable, we'll have a list of the existing
   publications
   ... for TTML3 we can provide vague wordings
   ... like "the next version of the spec made of one or mode
   documents"

   nigel: what about notes?

   plh: not necessarily
   ... but registry can be listed

   nigel: we'll say in the scope "publish recommendations for new
   TTML specifications as needed"
   ... in the deliverables, at the moment there is a TTML3
   ... I need to add that it may consist of one or more documents

   cyril: we could leave '3' out

   nigel: how important is the "update working draft" section

   plh: that's important because if you join the group, you commit
   to it
   ... for those that don't exist, you're commited only after
   publication
   ... and that list will be generated by W3C
   ... we are tracking that
   ... despite your attempts to have multiple repos here and there

   nigel: there is a wording change non controversial in success
   criteria
   ... because we might publish notes that could be interpreted as
   specifications
   ... and I don't want them to be interpreted regarding that
   section

   plh: one set of thoughts related to the naming, whether TTML 3
   or TTML Snapshot
   ... you can call it whatever you want
   ... it's more of a marketing question
   ... from the process it doesn't matter
   ... but it's not simple to make noise about it
   ... we won't present each module in the press

   nigel: that's a consideration of the modular approach

   plh: it might make it harder to communicate about what TTML is

   nigel: I think we have a bit of answer already
   ... make the noise about profiles
   ... like for Audio Description

   <nigel> Cyril: Re the success criteria, it's all about
   specifications, you could make it a bullet point list

   plh: btw, CSS Snapshots are not recommendations, just WG notes

   glenn: I generally oppose publishing snapshots documents

   nigel: I think one of the problems of getting different specs
   to recommendations is getting the impetus for tests
   ... if we do what we said, provide tests with spec, we should
   not be stuck in CR

   plh: regarding success criteria, would there be value in taking
   consumers of TTML more into account
   ... for example for the VR module, do we want to make sure we
   have at least one consumer that is able to understand the VR
   module

   nigel: in the past, we required at least one presentation
   processor
   ... I think that point can be addressed when we think of CR
   exit criteria

   plh: ok, it can be pushed to exit criteria for each module

   nigel: iterating through the other 3 issues: fix the timeline
   (to me), assign chairs (to plh), and WebVTT (assigned to
   nobody)
   ... my proposal is to leave these issues as is for the moment

   plh: sounds good to me

TTML Profile Registry Actions, Pull Requests and Issues

   pal: given that Mike Dolan is not here, I recommend skipping to
   TTML2 and TTML3
   ... we need the right people on the call

   glenn: I'd like to discuss PR 69

   nigel: let's discuss PR 69 then

Clarify codecs parameter syntax requirements (#63).
tt-profile-registry#69

   <nigel> github:
   [19]https://github.com/w3c/tt-profile-registry/pull/69


     [19] https://github.com/w3c/tt-profile-registry/pull/69


   cyril: I miss some context on why we don't want to change the
   IANA registry

   glenn: my recollection is that we do not need to update the
   body of the media type
   ... we did make one change to remove one misleading sentence
   which should not trigger IANA review

   cyril: what is wrong with triggering IANA review

   <inserted> scribe: nigel

   Cyril: The note should be in section 2 not section 3.
   ... The syntax of the codecs is being defined in section 3.

   Glenn: Those are requirements on registration

   Cyril: The requirements are as they are to meet the
   requirements of the codecs parameter.
   ... My problem is we don't formally define the codecs syntax.

   Glenn: Yes we do, under Section 2, codecs.

   Cyril: It's defined by example only.

   Nigel: If you're worried about the syntax of the operators and
   where it is defined, Cyril, that's pull request #70.

   Glenn: Looking at the note here, is there any argument about
   the correctness of the statement?

   Cyril: I'm arguing about the location, it describes an effect
   not listed formally anywhere else.
   ... I can raise an issue for defining codecs in section 2

   Nigel: I think that would be the right approach.

   Cyril: I will raise the issue.

   Glenn: Please could you remove your "request changes" review on
   #69?

   Cyril: Let me think about it.

WebVTT Implementation report

   Gary: This is waiting for comments on the pull request for the
   snapshot.

mark at-risk features in a new snapshot webvtt#449

   <cyril> scribe: cyril

   plh: I sent the email last week, we have some comments in the
   PR that have been addressed
   ... if people have issues with republishing the document as
   proposed by Gary in two weeks
   ... people should speak up, one more week to do so

   <nigel> [20]Philippe's CfC email of 14th March

     [20] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tt/2019Mar/0023.html


   nigel: is that a call for consensus

   plh: yes

   nigel: any update on the implementation report

   gkatsev: I added a new tab as result of API parsing
   ... some are failing because the tests are out of date
   ... I need to update the tests

   plh: i'm assuming that if there was any red flag we would have
   marked it at risk
   ... how long should we stay in CR?
   ... the minimum is 28 days

   gkatsev: we should go with the minimum

   <nigel> scribe: nigel

   Cyril: There was a question about support for what Netflix
   regards as essential Japanese features.
   ... The response was not clear to me, about if it is supported
   and to what extent.

   Gary: I'm not sure exactly the specifics. A lot of support in
   WebVTT comes from the rendering engine like HTML, so
   ... Ruby is supported and a lot of the rtl and other features
   are only available if the vendor supports them.

   Glenn: So to do Ruby you have to do the CSS styling for Ruby
   technique and then associate a stylesheet with the WebVTT
   document?

   Gary: You can use the ruby and rt tags.

   Glenn: Directly in the text in WebVTT?

   Gary: Yes. As for other Japanese features I am unsure.

   Cyril: What about vertical text?

   Gary: I believe that is supported via CSS.

   Cyril: I thought there was a line level setting to set the line
   layout to vertical?

   Gary: Yes there is a vertical setting.

   Cyril: Do you have a pointer to the tests that demonstrate
   rendering interop for this feature?

   Gary: There is a test for ruby support, I'm not sure about
   vertical

   Nigel: [can't find it]

   Gary: [can't find it either]

   Cyril: If you could offline send pointers to the tests for
   ruby, vertical text?
   ... For ta te chu yoko and bouten you're saying it's CSS only?

   Gary: I think that is currently the case, yes.

   Cyril: Okay, and we don't have tests for that, right? The test
   suite for WebVTT doesn't mandate CSS and there's no
   ... section of the tests that includes CSS?

   Gary: We do have tests for styling support, yes.

   Cyril: And those tests don't test the Japanese features, right?

   Gary: Yes

   Cyril: Ok, maybe we could add them?

   Gary: I could take a look at that.

   Pierre: What happens if a CR is republished and the test suite
   is not sufficient. Another CR?

   Philippe: No, it requires that the test suite is completed.

   Nigel: We've done this before, worked on the test suite during
   CR.

   Pierre: The danger is that if during the test suite development
   new at risk features are needed then that's a setback.

   Philippe: Yes you have to republish.
   ... One thing is that we don't want to test CSS and rendering,
   just WebVTT.

   Cyril: I only want to know if Japanese support is present, so
   it seems reasonable to have tests.

   Philippe: If WebVTT doesn't have anything specific for Japanese
   then we should not test HTML.
   ... It's not the job of WebVTT to test everything in HTML.
   ... You would be asking if HTML supports Japanese.

   Glenn: The answer is WebVTT has no support for Japanese but
   allows for pass-through syntax of Ruby and CSS styles
   ... that puts all the burden on the presentation engine to use
   HTML and CSS to do Japanese formatting.

   Andreas: I need to get my head clear on this, so apologies -
   WebVTT lists certain CSS features, not all of them, that it
   ... supports through the pseudo cue setting. Where WebVTT says
   it supports it, even by delegation to CSS, it is needed
   ... to test that it is rendered correctly by sufficient
   applications. They are critical features for rendering
   subtitles.
   ... Either they are supported or not, otherwise you would say
   that WebVTT would not support colour, say, so of course
   ... it should be tested with WebVTT that the CSS based
   rendering actually comes out correctly.

   Nigel: The purpose of the tests is to demonstrate
   implementability - I think you're pointing Andreas at the idea
   that
   ... we want to ensure there is no accident that the CSS styling
   actually cannot be implemented.

   Cyril: I agree that the purpose of the tests for the CR process
   is to demonstrate implementability interoperably and
   ... maybe the CG has the job to demonstrate that WebVTT can
   solve classes of problem in presentation especially on the
   ... internet.

   Philippe: Are you looking for pass-through tests with ruby
   markup in it?

   Cyril: David Ronca's email lists 5 things for which we have no
   evidence from the WebVTT tests that it can do them.
   ... 1. Vertical text - a core feature with no tests.
   ... 2. Ruby - also a feature of WebVTT.
   ... 3. Bouten, 4. Ta te chu yoko, 5. Slanted text - possibly
   not core features of WebVTT and reliant on CSS, so maybe
   ... for those the CG could demonstrate (not for CR) that the
   features can be supported.

   Pierre: The spec does define conformance directly related to
   CSS, it's not entirely a pass-through.
   ... It's not entirely true that it is a pass-through.

   Glenn: It does not detail specific CSS style formatting, and
   all the features you're talking about here are specific
   properties,
   ... bouten is text-emphasis, ta te chu yoko is text-combine,
   and vertical is writing-mode.
   ... Potentially also ruby-align and ruby-position properties
   also. There are at least 5 properties.

   Nigel: Slanted text?

   Glenn: I don't think CSS has anything to support that directly
   right now.

   Pierre: Correct, there's no shear.

   Nigel: There's a kind of shear isn't there, but not the right
   kind, i.e. it's on the wrong kind of element.

   Pierre: It is definitely not what is needed, ideally. It
   doesn't match the expectation of authors.

   Philippe: That sounds like a CSS issue not a WebVTT issue.

   Nigel: Every CSS property that is needed must be on the
   whitelist in WebVTT because everything else is ignored.

   Philippe: Correct. Are you saying some needed CSS properties
   are not on the whitelist?

   Pierre: Pointer to the whitelist?

   Gary: §8.2.1

   Pierre: I see.

   Gary: So text-combine: upright; is allowed.

   Pierre: Thanks for pointing it out.

   Nigel: Sounds like something to follow up offline.

   Glenn: And verify all those properties I mentioned are on the
   whitelist.

   Pierre: Some of the properties that are needed are in draft but
   not on the whitelist because they aren't ready today,
   ... like fill-line-gap.

   <plh> [21]https://www.w3.org/TR/webvtt1/#the-cue-pseudo-element


     [21] https://www.w3.org/TR/webvtt1/#the-cue-pseudo-element


   Glenn: I just mean the ones I listed.

   Pierre: text-emphasis is in CSS but not on the whitelist.

   Glenn: ruby-align is not there.

   Pierre: No because it's part of the ruby one... maybe not.

   <scribe> scribe: cyril

TTML3 Pull Requests

   nigel: we have one issue "add module framework"

   <nigel> github: [22]https://github.com/w3c/ttml3/pull/30


     [22] https://github.com/w3c/ttml3/pull/30


   nigel: cyril asked for some text to be removed
   ... I believe it has been removed

   cyril: let's go ahead, I'll review and raise an issue if needed

   nigel: I asked for a change on the name module
   ... the request is to define a module as elements, attributes
   or specs for that

   glenn: that's how I view a module

   cyril: what about the term Module in TTML2

   glenn: those are defined and go back to TTML1

sept F2F meetings

   nigel: we have 3 proposals

   [23]https://github.com/w3c/ttwg/issues/30


     [23] https://github.com/w3c/ttwg/issues/30


   nigel: people should add other options if they want to

   <nigel> scribe: nigel

Liaisons to MPEG and VR-IF

   Nigel: Liaisons have been sent, need to follow up on one of the
   VR-IF recipients because the email address didn't work.

AD CG

   Nigel: I've initiated a sequence of 4 meetings of the AD CG on
   Tuesdays at 1100 UTC (based on a poll to find a meeting time)
   ... and the first one was two days ago. Please feel free to
   join, and I can change the time if that's helpful.
   ... The goal is to tidy the document to be ready for this group
   to begin taking it on.

Meeting close.

   Nigel: Thanks everyone, sorry for running 6 minutes over.
   [adjourns meeting]

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

   [End of minutes]
     __________________________________________________________


    Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by
    David Booth's [24]scribe.perl version 1.154 ([25]CVS log)
    $Date: 2019/03/21 17:26:15 $

     [24] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm

     [25] 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, 21 March 2019 17:33:39 UTC