{Minutes} TTWG Meeting 2020-02-27

Thanks all for attending today's TTWG meeting. Minutes can be found in HTML format at https://www.w3.org/2020/02/27-tt-minutes.html

In text format:


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

                Timed Text Working Group Teleconference

27 February 2020

   [2]Previous meeting. [3]Agenda. [4]IRC log.

      [2] https://www.w3.org/2020/02/20-tt-minutes.html

      [3] https://github.com/w3c/ttwg/issues/96

      [4] https://www.w3.org/2020/02/27-tt-irc


          Atsushi, Cyril, Gary, Nigel, Pierre

          Andreas, Glenn

          Gary, Nigel



     * [5]Meeting minutes
         1. [6]This meeting
         2. [7]IMSC 1.2 HR
         3. [8]TTML2 Tests
         4. [9]AOB - Upcoming DST switch
         5. [10]Timeline Pull request
         6. [11]Meeting close

Meeting minutes

  This meeting

   Nigel: For the agenda today we have IMSC 1.2 HR and I will
   mention the CfC.
   … Also TTML2 2nd Ed CR Tests etc.
   … In AOB we currently have planning for DST changes
   … Is there any other business?

   Atsushi: Can we look at the timeline PR on TTWG?

   Nigel: Yes, apologies, I should have been in touch with you
   about that, because I cannot preview it!
   … Added to AOB.
   … Any more?

   group: [no more]

  IMSC 1.2 HR

   Nigel: I've managed to send the message to Web Security, just
   before this meeting.
   … Apologies for the delay - this was as discussed last week,
   but took me a while to get around to.
   … Hopefully that will be okay. I took the cue from Philippe to
   tell them we don't think anything
   … needs doing, and let them tell us if they disagree.
   … That completes the HR requests.
   … I don't think there have been any responses.
   … I see that TAG has scheduled IMSC 1.2 review for 2020-03-03.
   … That falls within our CfC review period for publication of
   IMSC 1.2 CR.
   … The other thing to note is I sent out the CfC for IMSC 1.2 CR
   publication shortly before this call.
   … I made two proposals not discussed directly last week.

   [12]CfC for IMSC 1.2 CR publication

     [12] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tt/2020Feb/0017.html

   Nigel: The first is the closure date for comments, which I set
   at 2020-04-16, as the earliest permitted date
   … being 4 weeks after CR publication.
   … If anyone thinks we should extend that please say as soon as
   we can.

   Cyril: I don't know if we should extend it, but I would like to
   propose adding a new
   … feature to IMSC 1.2 adding the fontShear attribute.
   … I can make a more concrete proposal.
   … Is that okay within this CfC.

   Pierre: I think the challenge is that the CR process is still
   pretty heavy.
   … We can not go to CR until we have all the features nailed.
   … But we cannot also say to hold up CR until all the features
   are submitted,
   … otherwise we'll never be done.
   … I guess the question for you is what is your drop-dead date
   to have the proposal in?

   Cyril: I can have the proposal in by next week.

   Pierre: Then would the feature be implemented or at risk?

   Cyril: We implement fontShear today in our renderer. Is the
   question about browsers?

   Pierre: I mean the resources to meet the CR exit criteria, i.e.
   implementation experience.

   Cyril: Because it is in TTML2 already I don't think we need to
   test anything more.
   … The only question is if there is consensus in adding the
   feature, and
   … that may come down to "can it be implemented in browsers?"
   because I
   … don't think we can include it otherwise.

   Pierre: I agree. There's an obvious fallback of oblique which
   is supported in browsers.

   Cyril: I am having side discussions with various people in CSS
   WG to see if
   … we can get the necessary features implemented.
   … The feedback was that implementing lineShear is too complex
   and not necessarily
   … in line with what other people expect when they do shearing
   in print
   … and typography. The second feedback is that if they are ready
   to adjust
   … the specification for font-style: oblique with angle to match
   our fontShear feature.
   … fontShear is acceptable as long as combined characters are
   sheared properly,
   … and so are rubys and vertical characters. They are willing to
   adjust the CSS spec
   … for that. So this means to me that I see a way forward to
   have better shearing
   … than with IMSC 1.1 shear, and I would like if possible to
   have that in IMSC 1.2.

   Pierre: We have to really make sure it is the right thing to
   do, and I'm not objecting
   … to the proposal at all.

   Cyril: I agree Pierre, and that's why I wanted to propose
   something for next week.

   Pierre: Maybe the proposal is to delay the CfC until next week.

   Nigel: As Chair, this is really late in the process. I'm
   tempted to say too late.
   … The approach for publication that the group agreed on a while
   ago was to try
   … to meet publication schedules not feature sets, so the
   implication there is that
   … we should say the feature set for 1.2 is closed and this
   should be added to the
   … next iteration, which would be 1.3.
   … That's not to say we can't delay 1.2 and add this, but the
   group should really
   … be aware of the impact.

   Cyril: I did warn the group a couple of weeks ago.

   Pierre: A real concern following up on what Nigel brought up is
   that by deferring
   … CR we open the door for other proposals to be made, which
   might also
   … be awesome, and then we'll never be done. That's a real
   … I'd much rather stick to what we hoped or planned to do
   initially which was
   … a yearly release, and avoid rushing things at the last
   minute, where
   … unavoidably we will make mistakes.
   … So Cyril another thing to consider is closing off IMSC 1.2
   and immediately
   … starting on IMSC 1.3 with this proposal in the requirements.
   … Then 1.2 makes its way through the process and we concentrate
   on 1.3
   … and make it really work.
   … In terms of timing, if we start on 1.3 today, in practice it
   will not take that
   … much more time than if we start futzing with 1.2.

   Nigel: Another question for Cyril is if there is a timeline
   driver that means
   … this feature has to be in 1.2 and cannot wait until 1.3

   Cyril: Not specifically, but we want to do the fontShear now.
   Waiting for 1.3
   … would I think be too late. I understand the timeline impact
   of putting it in 1.2.
   … The feature I am seeking to add is very minor and already in
   … I could propose the PR today within the CfC period.

   Pierre: We also would need to update the requirements.

   Cyril: Yes I could do that too.

   Pierre: I'm concerned about the impact if others think our
   deadlines for requirements don't really apply.
   … They could come and also ask for new features.
   … We might fall back into the trap we've been in before where
   we're never done.
   … This is a process issue in W3C, where the latency between
   Recs is many months.

   Nigel: Can I suggest that you think about how hard the
   requirement is to get it into 1.2 Cyril, and let us know.

   Cyril: What is the impact on the CfC?

   Nigel: If you really need it in 1.2 then I guess you're raising
   an issue or objecting to the CfC?
   … Hopefully we can resolve this without too much argument.

   Pierre: If we do this, then we are saying we don't really have
   a process for issuing IMSC regularly.

   Cyril: I'm not asking for a delay to 1.2

   Nigel: I don't believe a delay would be avoidable if we add a
   new substantive change at this time.
   … I think it would be an absolute minimum of 4 weeks and it
   would be hard to keep it that low.

   Pierre: I think the unfair question is what delay can the
   market tolerate?
   … If you were to say IMSC 1.2 is never going to get commercial
   acceptance unless it has that feature,
   … that's different from saying it would be nice to have but the
   industry can wait 6 months for IMSC 1.3.

   Cyril: I think Netflix would do this: the font feature is
   interesting but we would not rush into its adoption.
   … Proper shearing is something we would need. I see faster
   adoption if IMSC 1.2 has fontShear than if
   … it only has the current #font feature.

   Pierre: Trying to translate, you're saying that from a Netflix
   perspective, IMSC 1.2 is not useful,
   … compared to IMSC 1.1?

   Cyril: I wouldn't be that strong. We don't have use cases for
   downloadable fonts at the moment,
   … though it may be useful.

   Pierre: Thanks for clarifying.
   … I hear you, I think it makes sense to delay IMSC 1.2.
   … If we go down that path and we suddenly get a bunch of new
   requirements and IMSC 1.2
   … is suddenly a year away, ...

   Nigel: I must admit when I published the CfC I did not realise
   it might be controversial.
   … I didn't realise this from last week's discussion.

   Nigel: Cyril, we need to move on, can I ask that you send the
   proposal to the group
   … and we'll cover it next week?

   Pierre: Please could you make a pull request on the
   requirements document and I will take care of the rest?

   <cyril> [13]https://www.w3.org/TR/imsc-1.1-reqs/

     [13] https://www.w3.org/TR/imsc-1.1-reqs/

   Cyril: Okay. Is it this document? Oh no that's 1.1.

   <cyril> [14]https://w3c.github.io/imsc-vnext-reqs/

     [14] https://w3c.github.io/imsc-vnext-reqs/

   Cyril: This one?

   Nigel: Yeah I think so.
   … I think that is the right repo, let's do the details offline.

   Cyril: Okay I have it.

   Nigel: Before we move on from IMSC, the other proposal I made
   that we did not discuss
   … was the exit criteria. I copied this from IMSC 1.1 and
   amended the references.
   … Please check this and let me know if you think anything needs
   to change there.

  TTML2 Tests

   Nigel: Given the time, and Glenn's absence, I propose to move
   straight onto AOB.

  AOB - Upcoming DST switch

   Nigel: Please see [15]https://github.com/w3c/ttwg/issues/103

   … The options are there as comments, please upvote those you
   would prefer,
   … or downvote any that would cause you problems.
   … Then the Chairs will make a call on or by ... When would be
   good, Gary?

     [15] https://github.com/w3c/ttwg/issues/103

   Gary: next week's call?

   Nigel: That works for me.

   Gary: Gives enough notice before the change.

   Pierre: Looks like a tie on the poll right now.

   Gary: The Chairs are tie-breakers!

   Pierre: Unless they're split too!

  Timeline Pull request

   github: [16]https://github.com/w3c/ttwg/pull/98

     [16] https://github.com/w3c/ttwg/pull/98

   Nigel: Thanks for this Atsushi, it's a PR to create a page for
   our publication timelines,
   … which I didn't finish reviewing because I couldn't work out
   how to preview it.
   … Part of the reason why was because it is from your fork of
   the repo I think.

   <atsushi> [17]https://ttml-w3c.himor.in/


     [17] https://ttml-w3c.himor.in/TTWG-2019-spec-timeline.html

   Atsushi: Yes. [thinks] I have temporary copied it to here ^

   Nigel: Fantastic, thank you, I will review that and add
   comments, but probably just approve it.

   Atsushi: we should merge this as soon as possible and then open
   issues for corrections.

   Nigel: Okay I will approve this so we can merge and then make
   changes as needed. That's a good call.
   … Thank you. I'll do it shortly after this meeting.

  Meeting close

   Nigel: Thanks everyone, we've completed our agenda.
   … Please let us know any agenda topics for next week by
   … I guess we'll be talking about fontShear in IMSC 1.2.

   Cyril: I just opened a issue on the requirements, and I'm about
   to do the pull request.

   Nigel: OK, thank you.
   … Thanks everyone, let's adjourn. See you next week. [adjourns

    Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by
    [18]scribe.perl version 104 (Sat Dec 7 01:59:30 2019 UTC).

     [18] https://w3c.github.io/scribe2/scribedoc.html

Received on Thursday, 27 February 2020 17:33:31 UTC