- From: Nigel Megitt <nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk>
- Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2020 17:26:08 +0000
- To: "public-tt@w3.org" <public-tt@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <5334F335-946D-4886-B6A0-C214D4E71F63@bbc.co.uk>
Thanks all for attending today's TTWG meeting. Minutes can be found in HTML format at https://www.w3.org/2020/01/09-tt-minutes.html
Please note that we made 2 resolutions:
1. Respond to #1189 saying we will not make a change now and pointing out that P.9 effectively covers most of the points already.<https://www.w3.org/2020/01/09-tt-minutes.html#x07>
2. Publish TTML2 CR on 28th January 2020<https://www.w3.org/2020/01/09-tt-minutes.html#x08>
The review period under our decision review policy for these resolutions ends on 2020-01-23.
In text format:
[1]W3C
[1] https://www.w3.org/
Timed Text Working Group Teleconference
09 January 2020
[2]Previous meeting. [3]Agenda. [4]IRC log.
[2] https://www.w3.org/2019/12/19-tt-minutes.html
[3] https://github.com/w3c/ttwg/issues/88
[4] https://www.w3.org/2020/01/09-tt-irc
Attendees
Present
Andreas, Atsushi, Gary, Glenn, Huaqi, Nigel, Pierre
Regrets
-
Chair
Gary, Nigel
Scribe
nigel
Contents
* [5]Meeting minutes
1. [6]This meeting
2. [7]IMSC 1.2 FPWD Next steps
3. [8]Potential semantic conflict between ttp:profile and
ttp:contentProfiles. w3c/imsc#506
4. [9]font selection rules under-specified? w3c/imsc#516
5. [10]IMSC 1.1 Errata
6. [11]AOB - Early merge of TTML2 PRs
7. [12]AOB Bullet chatting discussion at M&E IG
8. [13]Meeting close
* [14]Summary of resolutions
Meeting minutes
This meeting
Nigel: Welcome to Huaqi Shan from China Mobile
… And welcome back everyone after our 2 week break.
… [iterates through agenda]
… Any other business, or points to make sure we cover?
group: [no other business]
IMSC 1.2 FPWD Next steps
Nigel: Re my action #87 to request WR.
… This was delayed before Christmas and I managed to get a
single key part of it done earlier today.
… Which was to request wide review on the public announce list.
… I also have to send liaisons to our liaisons as per the
Charter.
… I plan to adapt the earlier message for the liaisons.
Pierre: One question to discuss: the timetable.
… What's the best timetable we can achieve for CR of IMSC 1.2?
Atsushi: I am getting back to the timetable, more time please.
Pierre: It's going to be important for me to schedule my time
and understand when we're expected to address comments.
… It would be good to have a tentative schedule available.
Atsushi: Yes
Nigel: Given notice for review, time to address any comments
and issues, we're looking at not earlier than 20th or
… more likely 27th February for CR publication.
… That's based on minimum 4 weeks review time from sending out
the announcements today or tomorrow.
… Then taking into account our pull request merge time,
decision review policy time etc.
Pierre: Alright that's good, I'll make a note.
Nigel: The liaison work is ongoing, I'll go ahead and get that
done.
Potential semantic conflict between ttp:profile and
ttp:contentProfiles. w3c/imsc#506
github: [15]https://github.com/w3c/imsc/issues/506
[15] https://github.com/w3c/imsc/issues/506
Nigel: Where we left this last time was Glenn was going to have
a think about this some more.
Glenn: I'm afraid I haven't been able to do that.
font selection rules under-specified? w3c/imsc#516
github: [16]https://github.com/w3c/imsc/issues/516
[16] https://github.com/w3c/imsc/issues/516
Glenn: I responded on this. Auto means it's implementation
dependent.
Glenn: We should deal with this in TTML in the fullness of time
to map more to CSS font-face.
… I think there's an issue for it.
Nigel: That makes sense, so in the meantime we could consider
doing this in IMSC.
Glenn: It was going to be a tough nut to crack.
Glenn: It depends where the core work on TTML is going to be
done.
Nigel: Of course we could do it in IMSC and then move it across
to TTML
Glenn: It's clearly a core semantic issue.
Nigel: In that case we should think if we can cover it in TTML2
soon enough.
Glenn: I'll try to find the existing issue.
Nigel: Strictly this issue is off agenda.
SUMMARY: Conversation ongoing
IMSC 1.1 Errata
Nigel: I double checked the errata document and it does not
seem to pull through the GitHub issues in the way I
… was expecting.
Atsushi: I need to dig out the history of this. The code
depends on external resources hosted at github.io that was
… updated to remove depencies on jquery etc so I need to trace
back to when the code was taken and will look into that.
Nigel: OK sounds like my assessment is right that the document
is not looking correct now?
Atsushi: Part of the information taken from GitHub is right,
but some parts are not working.
Nigel: OK I will leave this with you.
Atsushi: At some point that file was copied from the main
repository, but only the main HTML file, so if there is any
… record of when such a copy was done, I may find it easier to
get a pointer to the copy in the main repository.
Nigel: I will look offline - Philippe did it very recently,
maybe December.
Atsushi: OK that helps me already.
… Let me take some time for that.
Nigel: OK, thank you
AOB - Early merge of TTML2 PRs
Nigel: Glenn is requesting early merge of w3c/ttml2#1191 and
w3c/ttml2#1192.
… These are for the CR publication?
Glenn: Correct. One of them was to update the CSS informative
bibliographic references. Writing Mode went to Rec,
… and a number of others have been updated, some to CR or PR
and a few others too.
… Also the CSS Box is no longer viable for referring to the
definition of width and height.
… CSS Basic Box was superseded by CSS Box so we had to go back
to the original CSS 2.1 references.
… Those are all informative or non-substantive editorial
changes.
… The second PR is to update entities to bring in the CR status
of the document and so forth.
… I want to mention I chose Jan 28 which is the date Philippe
gave us based on the wide review or horizontal review
… process rule according to our Charter. The other one was the
no-earlier-date for PR, based on the tool for coming
… up with dates for the various milestones.
Nigel: There's plenty of time to wait the normal period before
merging and still publish on time. Any reason for
… merging early, particularly?
Glenn: I just want to get it off my list - I have my reasons.
Nigel: Anyone need more time or have any objection to merging
this early?
group: [silence]
Nigel: Everyone seems happy so you can go ahead.
Glenn: That allows me to bundle up the TR and send it to
Atsushi ahead of publication.
… I've run it through pubrules and linkchecker and it passes
them so it should be ready to go.
… I'll put the tar together for you Atsushi.
Nigel: This seems a little ahead of time. For publishing on
28th we will need a resolution. The timing means we need
… to do that today, I realise.
Glenn: Procedural question - can you take that before the time
has expired for the wide review, or do you need the
… resolution to be conditional in order to give time for the
wide review to expire?
Nigel: Are there any issues?
Glenn: One issue was filed by Jeffrey Yasskin that has not been
labelled.
Nigel: That's a HR issue that was raised, so we need to think
about our actions.
Glenn: That's right. Options are: 1. Raise for 3rd Ed on the
basis that it is not related to any change in 2nd Ed.
… 2. Address it here anyway.
… I prefer to do the former and label as 3rd Ed and not make
any further changes on 2nd Ed.
Nigel: Any other views on that?
<atsushi> last CR update transition request seems to be :
[17]https://github.com/w3c/transitions/issues/77
[17] https://github.com/w3c/transitions/issues/77
[18]Mention fingerprinting vectors in privacy considerations
[18] https://github.com/w3c/ttml2/issues/1189
Nigel: The proposal is to modify an already existing
informative section.
… Another point related to this is that we previously discussed
extracting the privacy and security text from TTML, IMSC
… and WebVTT and publishing as a single WG Note.
Glenn: So it would be premature to make the change now?
Nigel: I'd rather be transparent about known risks earlier.
Glenn: I'd rather not be too quick if we are not sure the
information is accurate.
Nigel: Are any of the comments wrong?
Glenn: Some of them are about contexts that are not defined in
TTML.
Pierre: These are really generic privacy considerations for
UAs.
… Any time the UA opens anything on behalf of the user it opens
up a fingerprinting vector opportunity.
… From a high level I'm not sure why every specification for a
format for a UA needs to include those considerations.
… They could be listed in general somewhere for UAs.
… I'm arguing from an architectural standpoint that we should
not try to make progress on a UA issue in a TTML
… specification.
Glenn: If you look through here it talks about colour, user
preference for consuming media, language, fontFamily etc.
Pierre: My point is very general Glenn. For instance today a
web page defines multiple sizes of images that can be
… loaded based on break points. That's a fingerprinting vector
but the PNG spec is not the place to document it.
Glenn: I completely agree.
… The only thing in these comments that pertains to TTML2 at
all is the audio, image and condition bullet.
… Most of it pertains to TTML1 and as you say, and I agree,
it's even more general than that.
Pierre: I think we should try to reply to the commenter maybe
along those lines to say "aren't they generic considerations
… that belong in a common document rather than this document?".
… Different versions of the same text document in different
languages, say. If I access the Romanian version I probably
… live in Romania but it has nothing to do with the text
document specification really.
Glenn: Immediate problem is how to address this review comment.
… I think we owe the commenter a response, right?
Nigel: Right
Glenn: I don't think we have adequate cause to change the text
of our spec at this point to address this. That's my
… personal feeling. It would be a non-normative change if we do
make it and I don't think we need to make a change.
Pierre: I think we should try to avoid an exhaustive list of
all potential fingerprinting vectors.
… We could offer a simple sentence like "Loading this file and
the referenced resources from it may expose user preference"
Glenn: My preference is to do nothing.
Pierre: I don't disagree, but as a generic statement in a
compromise .
Nigel: [looks for existing statement that already does this]
[19]P.9 Privacy of Preference
[19] https://w3c.github.io/ttml2/index.html#d3e58989
Nigel: I think this already does something close enough.
PROPOSAL: Respond to #1189 saying we will not make a change now
and pointing out that P.9 effectively covers most of the points
already.
PROPOSAL: Publish TTML2 CR on 28th January 2020
Nigel: On the first proposal, does anyone think we really have
to make a change to TTML2 2nd Ed before CR publication
… to address #1189?
Nigel: hearing nobody, I'm taking that as a Resolution.
Resolution: Respond to #1189 saying we will not make a change
now and pointing out that P.9 effectively covers most of the
points already.
Nigel: On the second proposal, to publish TTML2 CR on 28th Jan,
any objections?
Nigel: hearing no objections.
Resolution: Publish TTML2 CR on 28th January 2020
Glenn: Procedural question: I presume that if we get some last
minute comment from the wide review process between
… now and then we will need to deal with it if it is of
substantive nature?
Nigel: Yes
Glenn: Right, that should be understood.
Nigel: Good point, thank you.
Glenn: I will proceed with the early merge after the call.
Atsushi: I will prepare the transition request based on that
resolution.
Glenn: One more question: On the issue #1189 shall I mark that
as...?
Nigel: Do you want me to deal with it?
Glenn: Sure, yes.
Nigel: I'll look at it and come up with something appropriate.
Glenn: Thank you. You might point out that appendix P in the
current document does address many of his comments.
Nigel: Sure, yes.
Glenn: Perhaps it addresses all of them indirectly.
AOB Bullet chatting discussion at M&E IG
Nigel: On Tuesday's M&E IG call
[20]M&E IG minutes 2020-01-07
[20] https://www.w3.org/2020/01/07-me-minutes.html
Nigel: I had some concerns about the gap analysis that was
presented and I would like TTWG to take some time to
… think about how we can help the folk involved understand the
landscape of TTML, WebVTT, HTML and the Text Track Cue APIs
… to clarify what they need and possibly improve the quality of
their decision.
… I just want to be really clear I'm not suggesting they
necessarily have the "wrong" outcome, but the reasoning
… and analysis that got there seemed like it could be improved.
Huaqi: After the meeting on Tuesday, we had some internal
discussion and yes we really needed the help from TTWG
… to understand TTML2 and WebVTT and we would like to continue
the discussion with you for the task force meeting.
Nigel: Thank you.
… Do you want to summarise what the proposal is at the moment?
Huaqi: Yes, in the meeting some questions were raised.
Currently we cannot find the answers for questions or ideas
… from the meeting so maybe we need further discussion
internally in the Community Group with other members
… and then we can continue the discussion in the task force
with you.
… We need your proposal actually.
Nigel: That's good to know that you're interested in having a
second, alternative proposal.
Huaqi: For the gap analysis we showed, do you have any other
proposal for the analysis?
Nigel: Yes, the other proposal would be to identify the
required animation features from TTML2 and either add them to
IMSC or create a new profile, and implement that. I'm sure that
both proposals could be made to work.
Andreas: We definitely need more time to discuss this so we
should dedicate a time window for it.
… A few minutes is not sufficient.
Nigel: I agree. People can obviously contribute also in the CG.
Glenn: I suggest that if you have another discussion on the
bullet material you hold it at the beginning of the meeting
… considering the time zone in China.
Nigel: Good idea, thank you, and also maybe do it at 1500 UTC
rather than 1600 UTC.
Glenn: Yes.
Meeting close
Nigel: Thanks everyone, let's adjourn for today. [adjourns
meeting]
Summary of resolutions
1. [21]Respond to #1189 saying we will not make a change now
and pointing out that P.9 effectively covers most of the
points already.
2. [22]Publish TTML2 CR on 28th January 2020
Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by
[23]scribe.perl version 104 (Sat Dec 7 01:59:30 2019 UTC).
[23] https://w3c.github.io/scribe2/scribedoc.html
Received on Thursday, 9 January 2020 17:26:13 UTC