{Minutes} TTWG meeting 2019-05-02

Thanks all for attending today’s TTWG meeting and to Cyril for scribing. Minutes can be found in HTML format at https://www.w3.org/2019/05/02-tt-minutes.html

We resolved to send the draft charter to W3M for review and completion and onward review by the AC.

In text format:


   [1]W3C

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

                Timed Text Working Group Teleconference

02 May 2019

   [2]Agenda

      [2] https://github.com/w3c/ttwg/issues/36

   See also: [3]IRC log

      [3] https://www.w3.org/2019/05/02-tt-irc

Attendees

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

   Regrets
          Thierry

   Chair
          Nigel

   Scribe
          Cyril, nigel

Contents

     * [4]Topics
         1. [5]this meeting
         2. [6]TTWG Charter
         3. [7]3D requirements
         4. [8]WebVTT
         5. [9]TTML Profile Registry issue #71
         6. [10]TTML2 Issue #1043
     * [11]Summary of Action Items
     * [12]Summary of Resolutions
     __________________________________________________________

   <cyril> scribe: Cyril

this meeting

   nigel: we'll talk about charter, and as sub-point, explainers
   ... on the ttreq, we have 3d reqs on the agenda
   ... webvtt
   ... in terms of TTML2 and TTML3 nothing on the agenda
   ... we have one item for the profile registry
   ... AOB I duplicated the event
   ... from last week

   pal: do you have issue 1043 on the agenda?
   ... also I would like to make progress on fonts and embedded
   font files, IMSC issue 472

   nigel: on 1043 I took the agenda off last week because we said
   we'll talk offline

   pal: on 472, it's about how to prevent somebody from going
   crazy here

TTWG Charter

   nigel: we don't have plh yet [later update: he joined a few
   minutes later]
   ... is everyone happy to send the draft to W3M for review in
   order to submit it to AC
   ... any objection to it?

   pal: we spoke a lot about it and we're all happy

   RESOLUTION: forward the current draft charter to W3M for review

   nigel: next one is we set a deadline for explainers
   ... there has been some work which is good
   ... not everything is there
   ... we have 2 explainers on the wiki

   <nigel> [13]tt-reqs wiki

     [13] https://github.com/w3c/tt-reqs/wiki

   nigel: one on audio description and one on karaoke

   cyril: I have 2 explainers left: responsive timed text and
   advanced japanser

   nigel: I had to do an explainer on live
   ... I'm waiting for some elements from EBU
   ... it's good to have some progress
   ... it would be good if people could have a read and send
   feedback

   <nigel> scribe: nigel

   Cyril: I wasn't sure exactly how to write the explainer, and am
   not sure if it's what was expected.
   ... It seems to be a living design document.

   Glenn: I think we're overblowing process. We should not mandate
   these explainers.
   ... On the point about karaoke, I have to say I'm not on board
   with the proposal in terms of the approach
   ... and need to discuss an alternative way that does not
   introduce a new element type.

   Cyril: I'm open to discussion.

   Glenn: I have some ideas about how to do it. I think we should
   avoid prematurely documenting
   ... design choices that might make the explainer misleading.

   <cyril> scribe: cyril

   nigel: I don't see a problem with having a living document
   ... describingg the design
   ... it's a tool to try and reach consensus
   ... we should try to produce them

   plh: it will take a week or two to get feedback on the charter
   ... I don't expect to receive much feedback given that the
   document is light

   nigel: do you need anything more regarding deliverables

   plh: I would expect the charter to be approved by the director
   by the end of june
   ... since there is no change of scope, we can go ahead with
   working drafts
   ... I'm not even sure we'll send a new call for participation

   nigel: one goal of the charter revision was to make it clear
   that the audio description would be in charter
   ... members of the audio description cg might join
   ... it was unclear that we had audio description on the charter

   plh: then I will issue a call to join and you will have 45 days
   to rejoin

   <nigel> scribe: nigel

   Cyril: On the Karaoke proposal I'm trying to implement a
   renderer for the new features
   ... I'm trying to represent quite complex examples and try to
   make sure that it is simple for simple
   ... examples. I also have a draft specification but it might
   completely change depending on the outcome.
   ... I wrote it as an extension to TTML2 in the sense that it
   defines a new feature, just one at the moment.
   ... It is an extension in the sense that it defines some
   vocabulary that is added on top of TTML2.
   ... It doesn't mention modules.

   Glenn: Just to let you know what I'm thinking is that instead
   of an element type have a new
   ... attribute tts:marker with some values. We should discuss
   this further.

   Cyril: Yes, I'm open to discussing it. I would like to conclude
   soon to move to a FPWD.

   Glenn: Let's schedule some discussion time

   Pierre: I'd like to be part of those discussion

   Philippe: I don't know how this relates to the old CSS aural
   properties

   Glenn: I don't think it's related at all. I'm familiar with
   those.
   ... The new audio properties intersect with those but not the
   marker concept.

   Philippe: I don't think those old CSS properties were
   implemented largely.
   ... I wanted to add that Explainers are wanted by the TAG for
   example.
   ... It's not just for the purpose of a WG conversation. It will
   be useful further down the line.

   Cyril: I agree to write these explainers especially for that
   purpose.
   ... Otherwise I'm of the opinion that it adds a burden as
   Glenn.

   <cyril> scribe: Cyril

   nigel: explainers will be helpful for others

   plh: to determine if they want to review the specification

   nigel: any other comment on the explainers?

3D requirements

   atai2: I wanted to give an update
   ... there are 3 things we need to consider
   ... 1 reqs have been submitted
   ... 2 liaison sent to MPEG
   ... 3 discussion on going with broader community
   ... for the requirements, after discussing with stakeholders,
   we need some more discussions about the scope
   ... one main question is if it should be just for subtitles in
   360 or omnidirectional media or should it be applicable to VR
   and AR
   ... first reaction is always yes
   ... but then for AR and VR it's much more complicated because
   the viewer is moving
   ... we need to discuss if we want to limit the scope
   ... MPEG liaison is only 360
   ... from the draft from MPEG, it's really another area we need
   to work in
   ... we need to see if need to specify additional information
   items, positioning ...
   ... or if we have a complete different environment that we need
   to work with
   ... we could review how fonts are handled
   ... I think we should just discuss MPEG draft deeply
   ... on the broader discussion, the immersive web always asks to
   open an issue before they decide to work on it
   ... Peter filed an issue there
   ... some discussion on-going
   ... I tried to get attention from accessibility groups
   ... I spoke to Alan Sterns from CSS
   ... we need to have a broader spectrum of people looking at it
   ... there will be a call on May 21st, 10 am PT, to discuss this
   in the Immersive CG
   ... everybody can join
   ... I hope we can have a discussion on the TTWG meeting next
   week before the call to see how the grgoup handles this issue

WebVTT

   gkatsev: last night I submitted a PR to add in a couple of file
   tests missing
   ... I've always started thinking about what to say in the IR
   and should be able to produce it soon

   nigel: the Web Platform tests have not been rerun
   ... are they run nightly?
   ... possibly not every day

   plh: are they run automatically?

   gkatsev: I think so
   ... are you talking about wpt.fyi ?
   ... because a lot of the tests are rendering tests, my
   spreadsheet is probably most up to date

   nigel: ok so we expect the IR in the coming week

TTML Profile Registry issue #71

   nigel: about issue 71

   <nigel> github:
   [14]https://github.com/w3c/tt-profile-registry/issues/71

     [14] https://github.com/w3c/tt-profile-registry/issues/71

   cyril: the request is to add a substantive change in the IANA
   section that defines the combination operators
   ... mike is not on the call for a while
   ... but he does think that it ought to be there
   ... my recollection is that it should be defined and compliant
   to RFC

   <nigel> glenn: we have to qualify what you mean by "define"

   cyril: it is not defined in the body of the media type
   registration

   nigel: at the moment it is defined what it means

   <nigel> scribe: nigel

   Cyril: The syntax is defined but absent from the IANA registry.
   ... It seems odd to have an informal definition when the rest
   is formal.

   Glenn: The only issue previously was if we should trigger the
   IANA review process.
   ... If everyone is happy with that then we can go ahead.

   Pierre: I'm not objecting to going through the IANA process but
   noting that we have trouble
   ... getting this out so I'm concerned about our level of
   resource.

   Glenn: We have updated our document and IANA references our
   document so we have formally
   ... updated it.

   <cyril> scribe: Cyril

   cyril: I will prepare a PR

   nigel: I don't share the concern about resources given that we
   don't have a hard deadline

TTML2 Issue #1043

   github: [15]https://github.com/w3c/ttml2/issues/1043

     [15] https://github.com/w3c/ttml2/issues/1043

   nigel: last time we said that we would deal with this offline

   pal: given that we are all here, we could have a shot at
   closing it

   glenn: let's spend 5 min

   pal: my homework was to review Glenn's PR
   ... there are 2 subtle points: text nodes being ignored and the
   applicability of styles to containers
   ... the PR that Glenn had proposed adresses both
   ... I'm happy with the way the PR adresses the first point
   ... not found a better way of doing it
   ... on the second part, I'm less happy
   ... it's buried in a note
   ... and it does not address specifically if a propery applies
   or not

   glenn: it's my opinion that if we define that LWSP is ignored
   in that context, irrespective of white-space attribute, for
   presentation
   ... and if we say that LWSP is forbidden
   ... we just need to add text for the error case

   pal: look at the example I posted in 1043
   ... there are 2 underlines that appear underneath hello

   nigel: I did not notice that before

   pal: my question is do we actually want text decoration to
   apply to the text container, ever

   glenn: you can construct an example that does not even involve
   ruby
   ... with outer spans and inner spans
   ... the intent of the specification is to not apply to all of
   them
   ... also similar to XSL FO

   pal: for div and p, this is obvious that it does not apply
   ... what I have not tried is the difference between inline
   block vs inline

   glenn: the semantic model for decoration in TTML is that it
   only applies to the most deeply nested text characters
   ... you don't have decorations applied to upper level
   ... ttpe does not do the behavior you are describing
   ... it may be an artefact of CSS or IMSC.js

   pal: I'm of hte same opinion
   ... that it does not apply to text container
   ... but I want it to be clear

   glenn: I'm not happy to have the same text in all properties
   ... I can tweak the note

   pal: that note is not sufficient
   ... it does not cover the case we are looking at right now

   nigel: Pierre's proposal very clearly is to add a clause to
   apply to to the various style attributes
   ... to add unless text container or ruby container
   ... any objection to that?

   glenn: we decided to avoid repetition

   nigel: you can refactor that to avoid repetition
   ... for example defining a term for a class of span

   glenn: on this text decoration, I'm not sure that an
   interpretation of TTML2 can lead to that

   nigel: my reading of this is that you can interpret it that way
   ... if you think adding a normative statement is a no-op
   ... there should be no problem going ahead
   ... we are over time, we'll adjourn to same time next week

   <plh> regrets for next week

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

    1. [16]forward the current draft charter to W3M for review

   [End of minutes]
     __________________________________________________________


    Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by
    David Booth's [17]scribe.perl version 1.154 ([18]CVS log)
    $Date: 2019/05/02 16:11:23 $

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