- From: Nigel Megitt <nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk>
- Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2020 17:53:58 +0000
- To: "public-tt@w3.org" <public-tt@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <1D69466D-16FB-457E-BD89-B5DCB6E02E4F@bbc.co.uk>
Thanks all for attending today's TTWG meeting. Minutes can be found in HTML format at https://www.w3.org/2020/01/30-tt-minutes.html
Those minutes in text format:
[1]W3C
[1] https://www.w3.org/
Timed Text Working Group Teleconference
30 January 2020
[2]Previous meeting. [3]Agenda. [4]IRC log.
[2] https://www.w3.org/2020/01/23-tt-minutes.html
[3] https://github.com/w3c/ttwg/issues/91
[4] https://www.w3.org/2020/01/30-tt-irc
Attendees
Present
Atsushi, Cyril, Gary, Glenn, Nigel, Pierre
Regrets
Andreas
Chair
Gary, Nigel
Scribe
nigel
Contents
* [5]Meeting minutes
1. [6]This meeting
2. [7]Potential semantic conflict between ttp:profile and
ttp:contentProfiles. imsc#506
3. [8]Permit CSS font matching and font-face mapping
imsc#517
4. [9]TTML2 2nd Edition CR Publication
5. [10]AOB - WebVMT
6. [11]Meeting close.
Meeting minutes
This meeting
Nigel: Today, we have IMSC 1.2 FPWD next steps, two issues/pull
requests to discuss.
… Plus TTML2 2nd Edition CR publication.
… Is there any other business?
Pierre: Can we discuss WebVMT?
Nigel: Sure, in AOB
Potential semantic conflict between ttp:profile and
ttp:contentProfiles. imsc#506
github: [12]https://github.com/w3c/imsc/issues/506
[12] https://github.com/w3c/imsc/issues/506
Nigel: Just checking in, since when we discussed this last the
Editor was not present.
… Did the consensus last time make sense, Pierre? Any other
questions.
Pierre: Seems fine with me.
… But why in IMSC 1.2 instead of TTML2? We have to remove the
may, but if folks think a note here would be
… useful that's fine. I'll change the wording a little bit but
keep the intent.
SUMMARY: Editor to prepare Pull Request
Glenn: I would accept this under TTML2 in a future edition.
Nigel: But I wanted it sooner so suggested put it in IMSC 1.2
now and TTML2 later.
Glenn: There's some similar existing language in TTML already.
Pierre: Okay, got it, thanks.
Permit CSS font matching and font-face mapping imsc#517
github: [13]https://github.com/w3c/imsc/pull/517
[13] https://github.com/w3c/imsc/pull/517
Pierre: I have one last editorial comment.
Nigel: Also Glenn raised more substantive comments, let's do
those first.
Glenn: 1. On the font-face issue, we didn't actually discuss
the font-face matter at the last meeting as
… far as I recall. It doesn't make any sense at all as far as I
am aware to even mention font-face because it
… has no relevance to us because there is no way to refer to
font-face in our context whatsoever.
… We don't have any way to put font-face in our content,
syntactically, so any use of it would have to be
… completely out of the scope of TTML or IMSC unless I'm
missing something.
Nigel: We did discuss font-face and the intent here is to say
that using the font-face algorithm is compatible with
… the TTML font matching semantics which are implementation
defined.
Glenn: The font-face rule describes a syntax. I thought from
last week we were only talking about CSS Fonts §5.1
… The first paragraph, by itself, is perfectly fine and is
exactly what I thought we agreed last week, and I think it is
… sufficient. Anything else is extraneous. The implementation
can decide all the details.
… It's going overboard by putting extra hints on what the
implementation might do.
… You're saying "implementor, here are other things you might
think about", but I don't see that as a necessary hint.
Nigel: I thought it is unclear what we mean unless we explain
the mapping.
Glenn: I think implementers will find it obvious so the table
is not necessary.
Pierre: Just for my own clarification, which paragraph are you
referring to?
Glenn: I'm suggesting deleting the paragraph about the
font-face rule, and just leaving the first new one
… that says the font matching algorithm in place.
Pierre: That would address my comment as well.
… My question was why have those two paragraphs disconnected.
… From an implementer it was weird that I could use one without
the other.
… If the conclusion is the first one is sufficient then it
would be good to keep just that one.
Glenn: In the note, the first sentence is already written into
the text of the spec, so it isn't needed.
Nigel: You think the second sentence works without the first
one?
Glenn: OK if we just remove the last sentence we could keep
this.
… For locality of reference, put it after the new paragraph
about the font matching algorithm.
Nigel: That works for me.
Glenn: Thank you for accommodating me.
Nigel: Not at all, feedback very welcome.
Pierre: That change would address my comments too.
Nigel: Okay, I will implement that in the pull request.
SUMMARY: @nigelmegitt to amend pull request taking into account
feedback from today's discussion.
TTML2 2nd Edition CR Publication
<atsushi> :yay:
Nigel: We published on the 28th as planned. Thank you to Glenn
and Atsushi for making it happen.
[14]TTML2 2nd Edition CR
[14] https://www.w3.org/TR/2020/CR-ttml2-20200128/
Nigel: There's a question, whether to point people looking at
1st Ed Rec at this new 2nd Ed CR.
Glenn: Tricky question. I can't recall what we did with TTML1
Nigel: I don't think this facility existed then.
Glenn: It may have for 3rd Ed, which was late 2018.
… I'm of 2 minds. I wouldn't want it to warn to say the Rec is
obsolete.
… If we did a warning I would want it to say something like "A
revision is in process, look here if you want to see it"
Nigel: Is this something where we can control the text?
Atsushi: Usually when a WG updates a Rec a pop-up will be
raised to note it is an old version so please look at the new
version.
<atsushi> [15]https://www.w3.org/TR/2018/PR-ttml1-20181004/
[15] https://www.w3.org/TR/2018/PR-ttml1-20181004/
Atsushi: This one says "This version is outdated!"
… Do you want this popup in TTML2 1st Ed Rec to point to TTML2
CR?
… I suppose if we consider the TTML1 Rec is still alive, it may
be possible to keep TTML1 Rec as the latest version for TTML1.
Pierre: Yes, please don't touch TTML1.
Nigel: Agreed, this is only about TTML2
Glenn: The question is can we supply the text for the warning?
… In this case the TTML2 1st Ed is still active. It is not
outdated yet.
… But it is in process of revision so we could provide a
warning saying that it is in the process of revision and
linking to the revision.
… We would not want to say it is outdated. Please could you
check to see from the publishing people if we can provide
… the text of that? If they only have canned text then we may
need to leave it the same.
Nigel: It might depend on what the canned text options are.
Glenn: We'd want to provide text.
Atsushi: That pop-up is provided by a central database so I
don't think we can customise the note.
Glenn: Can you ask the publishing people, maybe their database
has a way to include a custom message?
<atsushi> <script src="[16]https://www.w3.org/scripts/TR/2016/
fixup.js"></script>
[16] https://www.w3.org/scripts/TR/2016/fixup.js">
Atsushi: When I checked before we usually just put one line of
inclusion of script.
Nigel: That script goes to [17]https://www.w3.org/TR/
tr-outdated-spec and the response depends on the referring
document.
… So Atsushi could you ask what flexibility we have in
directing the server to send our own text for that, in response
… to the referral?
[17] https://www.w3.org/TR/tr-outdated-spec
Atsushi: Yes, I can ask
Nigel: I think our conclusion is that we would like some text,
but only if we can check it in advance.
Atsushi: It seems all of the contents are written by JSON data
from the URL - let me go back to them with this request.
Nigel: Thank you
… In terms of this CR, I think the next steps are to work out
which tests should go into the implementation report
… and prepare that.
Glenn: I counted 30 substantive PRs going into this version
(from memory) and 15 (?) of them were marked as
… untestable, or as having test, I think 11 have tests and 4
are untestable.
… TTV is one implementation of those 11, so that leaves 15
others that were merged prior
… to our arrangement to create tests before merging, so we need
to go back and create tests for the other 15.
… Then we need to find another implementation for the remaining
testable ones.
… Of the 15 that are left some of them might end up being
untestable. We haven't gone through them yet.
… We do need another implementation. Right now we've written in
the SOTD that we won't go to PR before
… March 17 so I've already created a milestone in GitHub and
marked its pending completion date as that date.
… It can be changed.
… We have one issue tentatively right now which is the privacy
review response.
… There's also a request from internationalisation to change an
example to use isolate instead of embed, which
… we can probably accommodate prior to Proposed Rec.
… So we need to identify a possible 2nd implementation.
… So we need to look into that. Previously BBC, Netflix and I
believe Pierre, you guys, had done some implementation
… work so perhaps we can get another implementation.
… I need to look at the possibility of TTV implementing the
other testable tests.
Nigel: Yes, good summary and reminder points about our next
steps.
<atsushi> [18]https://himorin.github.io/ttwg/
TTWG-2019-spec-timeline.html
[18] https://himorin.github.io/ttwg/TTWG-2019-spec-timeline.html
Atsushi: I need to update the above for TTML2.
Glenn: I used Philippe's tool for generating 17th March. It
said Rec publishing date in April if all goes to plan,
… but Atsushi should maybe generate a timeline incorporating
current practice and all the steps necessary.
Atsushi: Also let me propose one thing on this.
… For now, that timeline is put to w3.org as a single HTML5 but
is it possible to have one directory to be redirected
… to github.io so we can host these files in there to be
published at w3.org space, like our current index.html for WG
Nigel: Yes of course, it would make sense to put this in the
TTWG repo.
Atsushi: Currently only the home page redirects, but we could
add a subdirectory used for us to easily edit via PR.
Nigel: That's a really good idea, yes please.
<atsushi> [19]https://www.w3.org/immersive-web/
[19] https://www.w3.org/immersive-web/
Atsushi: I will send an email requesting a directory. I'm not
sure what directory to use.
<atsushi> [20]https://github.com/immersive-web/homepage
[20] https://github.com/immersive-web/homepage
Nigel: I'm not sure either, maybe follow another group, or
otherwise call it something like 'wip'.
… Can we follow this up off-line with Atsushi, Gary and Nigel?
Atsushi: Yes
AOB - WebVMT
Pierre: WebVMT is a fork of WebVTT.
… I'm interested in keeping all the Timed Text discussions in
the same group in W3C.
… Do you have any insights, maybe Gary?
Gary: Rob Smith is the one heading this up.
… It sounds like it started off with them trying to use WebVTT
for metadata.
Nigel: Specifically geographic metadata.
Gary: Yes, for tying map data to a video, like showing
locations moving on a map.
… It seems like it's mostly an extension rather than a full
fork, but there are definitely some changes.
… They potentially should be moved back to WebVTT, I don't
know.
Nigel: Last I heard on this, it is WebVTT minus some features
that Rob thought were unnecessary for the use case.
Pierre: It is confusing to have a proliferation of groups
working on timed text.
… It would be good to ask them why not join TTWG?
Gary: He's also working on the datacue proposal.
Pierre: It would be good if these were all under the same roof.
Gary: That makes sense. There was a question from Silvia on the
M&E mailing list asking why different from WebVTT.
Pierre: I don't want to prevent that work, and I don't want to
presume of the outcome, but also looking at what is
… happening with bullet chatting, it's great to have loads of
initiatives but hard to keep track of them.
Nigel: Sounds like W3C all over!
Pierre: Well indeed, it is a recurring comment.
Gary: It is also possible that forking is the best decision.
Pierre: Exactly, I don't want to make an assumption but it
would be good to do it in the same group.
Gary: Yes, my only issue is that it is harder to trickle back
good features into WebVTT.
Pierre: Yes, and with bullet chatting, people get excited about
WebVTT because it is implemented in browsers,
… but if they extend it and do it without browser
implementation then they're back where they started.
Gary: Exactly.
… They're back to implementing themselves.
Pierre: Exactly, I always thought that was a strange argument.
Nigel: Okay, that's noted, one for Gary and I to think about.
I'm not sure what actions to take.
Meeting close.
Nigel: Thanks everyone. We're a little over time, so let's
adjourn. [adjourns meeting]
Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by
[21]scribe.perl version 104 (Sat Dec 7 01:59:30 2019 UTC).
[21] https://w3c.github.io/scribe2/scribedoc.html
Received on Thursday, 30 January 2020 17:54:05 UTC