- From: Nigel Megitt <nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk>
- Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2020 17:33:15 +0000
- To: "public-tt@w3.org" <public-tt@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <906C88E1-8B91-49E8-8462-78943323F6F3@bbc.co.uk>
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]W3C
[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
Attendees
Present
Atsushi, Cyril, Gary, Nigel, Pierre
Regrets
Andreas, Glenn
Chair
Gary, Nigel
Scribe
nigel
Contents
* [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
concern.
… 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
TTML2.
… 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/
TTWG-2019-spec-timeline.html
[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
Tuesday.
… 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
meeting]
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