- From: Nigel Megitt <nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk>
- Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2020 16:13:05 +0000
- To: "public-tt@w3.org" <public-tt@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <DC7A4680-FB1C-4349-B532-7A9A7E2068FC@bbc.co.uk>
Thanks all for attending today's TTWG meeting. Minutes can be found in HTML format at https://www.w3.org/2020/04/16-tt-minutes.html
In text format:
[1]W3C
[1] https://www.w3.org/
Timed Text Working Group Teleconference
16 April 2020
[2]Previous meeting. [3]Agenda. [4]IRC log.
[2] https://www.w3.org/2020/04/09-tt-minutes.html
[3] https://github.com/w3c/ttwg/issues/107
[4] https://www.w3.org/2020/04/16-tt-irc
Attendees
Present
Andreas, Atsushi, Cyril, Gary, Glenn, Nigel, Pierre
Regrets
None
Chair
Gary, Nigel
Scribe
Cyril, nigel
Contents
1. [5]this meeting
2. [6]IMSC1.2
3. [7]TTML2 2nd Edition Implementation Report - tests
4. [8]TPAC Planning
5. [9]Meeting close
Meeting minutes
this meeting
nigel: some imsc topics, and TTML2 IR, and tests
… there is one AOB which is planning for TPAC
… is there any other business ?
… I noticed a open PR with a stalled discussion
[silence]
IMSC1.2
nigel: we seem to have a way forward to have the rec link fixed
on the published spec
Atsushi: last week we discussed editing the spec
… but that was invalid
… the only way is to do in place editing
… simply editing the HTML not using respec
nigel: that's ok we just need to make sure in respec that
future editions will have the correct spec
nigel: any other thoughts?
pal: sounds good
pal: very quickly on IMSC1.2
… HR still no feedback on 2 PR from the APA?
nigel: I had an action to ping Michael Cooper
… he responded to my email saying he'd look at it
… but so far hasn't
pal: this is frustrating
… we were responsive in responding to their comments
nigel: I had his response on April 8th
… over a week now
nigel: the earliest date to advance to PR is the 5th of May
… but we need a version integrating comments
… I should nag them
… this is critical path
cyril: if it were a non HR comment, we would have closed the
comment already
pal: we should include the team in the email thread
TTML2 2nd Edition Implementation Report - tests
nigel: we have 2 open PRs
… those PRs are againts 2 open issues on TTML2 test
glenn: I just updated PR 252 this morning to add the line
breaks as you had requested
… if you are satisfied we can dispatch it
nigel: I will
… have a look
glenn: the other one, I'll run through the issues next day or
so
… I need to make a run on the IR document
… still don't know if anybody is working on actual
implementation other than BBC on audio
nigel: as far as audio and BBC, we integrated it to our tests
and it succeeds
… it's public and visible so I'll add a link in the IR
cyril: Netflix will have a very limited report regarding the
new tests
glenn: at least we'll have an implementation by the end of
April
<nigel> [10]TTML2 Second Edition Implementation Report
[10] https://www.w3.org/wiki/TimedText/TTML2SecondEditionImplementationReport
glenn: for all the presentation tests and validation tests
… I'll have to coordinate with Cyril with what they can provide
and then see what's missing
cyril: I suspect we will be missing a second validation
implementation only
glenn: correct. previously we had other validation
implementations, from Pierre and Andreas
… in this particular set of tests, it's a mixture of
presentation tests and validation tests
… 50/50
nigel: the current IR needs a review because I know some tests
are missing. There are
… quite a few, maybe 15 validation tests, and 20-25 invalid, 3
presentation tests
… I know more presentation tests need to be added
nigel: anything else on that agenda topic?
[silence]
glenn: there are TTML2 editorial issues (typos)
… you had a request to make a change to an example
… I don't like to do it in 2nd edition
… I'd prefer to delay it to 3rd ed
nigel: I already did a PR for a typo fix
… for the other one, I did not understand the concern
… I suggested changing 2 lines in the example
… you made a comment that they have been stable since TTML1
glenn: we are only on record that the only changes that we
would do are typo changes
… this is not
… this is not a WR or HR either
nigel: I would consider it WR as it is completely editorial
… not a big deal, but clearly caused confusion
glenn: it wasn't part of the review before CR
nigel: I just received the feedback
… I'll continue to prepare the change regardless of when we
merge it
… people were taking the example in the introduction as a good
practice for positioning
… it seemed to me that it was worthwhile to address that
feedback
glenn: you said that if you have a body that specifies a region
and an children with another region, some content would
disappear
nigel: yes, it gets pruned
… we had a long discussion in the past and concluded that
glenn: hmm... I believe you are right
nigel: that's why I think it's a bad example
glenn: it's not applicable to the actual example
… that could be resolved by adding a note to the example
nigel: why not
glenn: I would be amenable to adding a note now
nigel: let me have a look
glenn: I just don't want to change the example
TPAC Planning
nigel: you might have seen TTWG issue 112
… staff have sent chairs a link to a survey
… as usual
… obviously this year is weird
… not clear we will have a physical meeting
… they have added questions about a virtual meeting
… not sure the best way is to have the discussion now
… so please have a look
<nigel> github: [11]https://github.com/w3c/ttwg/issues/112
[11] https://github.com/w3c/ttwg/issues/112
nigel: the virtual meeting questions are
… general attitude towards having it (too complicated, ...)
Atsushi: W3C opened several pages of notes for operations under
the current situation
<nigel> [12]Continuity of Operations under Travel Restrictions
[12] https://www.w3.org/Guide/meetings/continuity.html
Atsushi: for this past one month, there were several F2F 3-4
meetings per day over 1 week
… short meetings is considered an alternative meeting for
offline TPAC
… it might be possible to have TPAC over several weeks
… there are several discussions, no solid decision to have
online or offline
pal: I want to echo that trying to recreate TPAC virtually is a
fool's errands
<atsushi> [13]continuity of operations under travel
restrictions
[13] https://w3c.github.io/Guide/meetings/continuity.html
pal: virtual meetings have to be planned differently
… on the other hands, having a time and place to bring together
multiple threads is very valuable
… on many weeks or one week
… is a good idea
<atsushi> [14]web payments WG virtual F2F March 2020
[14] https://github.com/w3c/webpayments/wiki/FTF-Mar2020
cyril: ISO has proposed 3 meetings a day over a concentrated 1
week period,
… at something like 0500, 1000 and 2000 UTC time.
… I think we should avoid trying to do something like that.
… We should focus a virtual TPAC on joint meetings only
Andreas: I agree. It's worthwhile thinking about the goals of
TPAC and trying to
… achieve the same goals virtually in whatever form.
… It's a good opportunity to say that what is special about
TPAC is not WG meetings,
… but joint meetings, because every group is organised in the
same place.
… It would not be a good idea to meet maybe over several weeks,
rather over one week in fixed time zones over 2-3
… hours, with short WG meetings for preparation and
post-joint-meeting discussions.
… It will be good to wait until the May AC meeting experience,
which will also be virtual.
Pierre: I wanted to echo what Cyril says.
… It should be focused on joint work and I don't think that
individual groups should
… be encouraged to meet. My observation is that virtual
meetings can be more efficient
… but require a lot more pre-planning.
Pierre: When meeting face to face sometimes people take
shortcuts, and it is easier
… to have side conversations. Maybe people feel they've set
aside the time so they can
… fill it more flexibly. It's hard to tell.
… I like the idea of a TPAC where common threads are brought
together but please
… let's not schedule WG meetings during that week.
<Zakim> info, you wanted to comment on AC 2020 May
Atsushi: Just for info about the AC meeting next month.
… It is quite different from WG discussions so W3C will provide
pre-recorded videos
… for talks over 9-10 hours and try to have 90 minute
conversations, two times.
… That's how virtual AC 2020 will be organised.
… It's quite a different set of conditions from our WG meeting.
Nigel: Would it be a good idea to try to simulate
side-conversations?
Pierre: If anyone can crack that it would be great progress for
humanity in general!
… If there's a way to solve it that would be great. Current
platforms make it really
… hard to have those conversations.
… Those side conversations only happen during meetings, and it
isn't facilitated in breaks etc.
… If any org can do it, W3C can!
… It is the missing thing from virtual meetings.
… People work around it somehow. Maybe it can be integrated in
meeting planning.
… That's a stretch goal. It is possible to plan TPAC as a
virtual meeting, but will require
… more planning than usual.
Nigel: Another question is on the duration and timezone. A
single TPAC timezone,
… or using only a small part of the working day that works best
globally?
Pierre: I would be pragmatic here for a big plenary. For joint
meetings, base it entirely
… on the membership, and who can attend and where they are.
… Picking a single time zone is not pragmatic. It is simple
conceptually but makes nobody
… happy other than the people in that timezone. I don't like
that solution at all.
Glenn: Was there a location originally planned?
Nigel: Vancouver
Pierre: I'd love it in Vancouver's time zone but I think it's a
terrible idea.
… For individual group meetings I would base it entirely on the
attendees.
Nigel: We are out of time for today and we covered a lot, but
we may need to come back to canvas
… opinions on some of the questions we haven't tackled.
Gary: One idea for the side conversation is time scheduled for
a Webex where anyone
… can join, regardless of group, especially if we are doing the
remote thing.
… Some people may still have travel restrictions in place.
SUMMARY: Initial discussion: don't try to reproduce TPAC
virtually, focus on the joint meetings and main benefits of
cross-fertilisation of ideas and groups.
Meeting close
Nigel: Thanks everyone, we're out of time for today. [adjourns
meeting]
Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by
[15]scribe.perl version 114 (Tue Mar 17 13:45:45 2020 UTC).
[15] https://w3c.github.io/scribe2/scribedoc.html
----------------------------
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, 16 April 2020 16:13:24 UTC