- From: Nigel Megitt <nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk>
- Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2020 17:16:28 +0000
- To: "public-tt@w3.org" <public-tt@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <619161D0-6C31-45B5-A669-FB9EEF474FD3@bbc.co.uk>
Thanks all for attending today's TTWG meeting. Minutes can be found in HTML format at https://www.w3.org/2020/03/05-tt-minutes.html
I will send separate emails too, but please note that we agreed to switch the UTC time of the meeting to accommodate DST changes.
The meeting time will continue as 1600 UTC for the remaining meetings in March, and then switch to 1500 UTC from 2nd April onwards.
Those minutes in text format:
[1]W3C
[1] https://www.w3.org/
Timed Text Working Group Teleconference
05 March 2020
[2]Previous meeting. [3]Agenda. [4]IRC log.
[2] https://www.w3.org/2020/02/27-tt-minutes.html
[3] https://github.com/w3c/ttwg/issues/99
[4] https://www.w3.org/2020/03/05-tt-irc
Attendees
Present
Andreas, Atsushi, Cyril, Gary, Glenn, Nigel, Pierre
Regrets
none
Chair
Gary, Nigel
Scribe
nigel
Contents
* [5]Meeting minutes
1. [6]This meeting
2. [7]IMSC 1.2 New feature requests and CR CfC
3. [8]TTML2 2nd Edition CR Publication - Tests
4. [9]Tests in general
5. [10]AOB - DST switch
6. [11]Meeting close
Meeting minutes
This meeting
Nigel: Lots to cover today - IMSC 1.2 feature requests, IMSC
1.2 CR CfC, TTML2 CR Tests,
… and DST switch.
… Is there any other business to cover, or particular points to
cover not listed on the agenda?
group: [none]
IMSC 1.2 New feature requests and CR CfC
Nigel: We have recently had 3 new feature requests for IMSC
1.2.
… We need to decide if we go for CR based on the IMSC 1.2 FPWD
or do editorial work
… to support some of these feature requests.
Cyril: Timeline of Rec - assuming most aggressive schedule, is
Rec in 4-5 months
… reasonable?
<atsushi> [12]https://w3c.github.io/spec-releases/
milestones/?fpwd=2019-11-28
[12] https://w3c.github.io/spec-releases/milestones/?fpwd=2019-11-28
Nigel: 28 days for PR from CR, assuming we have no tests to
complete, then a few weeks
… to REC. The hold up might be the call for exclusions period.
Atsushi: The Call for Exclusion period is 60 days. For IMSC 1.2
this would be completed on April 26.
Nigel: In that case the period would be 2 months before Rec.
Cyril: Assuming all transitions would go well.
… I think the CfC still has a week to run, then the transitions
have to happen.
… From a Netflix perspective if IMSC 1.2 is going to be
published in more than 3 months (roughly)
… then we will not insist on having the feature in IMSC 1.2
because we will not be able to change our plans anyway.
Nigel: Confused - do you mean less than 3 months?
Cyril: let's say we add fontShear to IMSC 1.2 today. If Rec
publication would be more than 3
… months from now it wouldn't fit Netflix timeline so we would
not insist on that.
… We still want the feature but we would wait for the next
version.
… Maybe I was a little over-optimistic before.
Nigel: For me that is a clear steer that we should proceed with
IMSC 1.2 as is, and
… soon open up for new requirements for IMSC 1.3 including the
three recently raised,
… which simplifies things a lot. Any views from others in the
group?
group: [silence]
Nigel: I think silence means everyone agrees that is the right
answer.
Pierre: Yes.
Nigel: Thanks for reminding us of the CfC Cyril. That has 1
week to run, and currently
… no objections.
[13]Call for Consensus to publish IMSC 1.2 CR
[13] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tt/2020Feb/0017.html
Nigel: We now have the choice of iterating through the three
new issues to register that
… we will consider them for the next version.
Pierre: I don't think we should rush ahead with those - there
may be impacts on TTML2
… and CSS, so we cannot make a judgement call now.
… There may be some that we decided not to do in the past
because they are too hard.
… We need to come prepared to discuss them with plenty of time.
Nigel: OK, this is the sort of thing where a face to face
meeting (if we can have those)
… would be quite useful.
Nigel: I will add a note offline to the new issues saying we
mentioned them in today's
… call and will consider them for future versions of IMSC 1.2,
etc.
Pierre: Thanks.
Nigel: The status of the CfC at the moment is that it still
stands.
TTML2 2nd Edition CR Publication - Tests
Nigel: Thanks to everyone, chiefly Glenn, who has worked on the
ttml2-tests issues.
… There are some where we need to agree we don't need tests,
and others where I've
… been insistent that we do need tests.
Glenn: I can accommodate the request for those tests.
Nigel: That makes me happy.
Glenn: I can make one of the issues marked as not testable as
testable.
… I've gone through and created issues for them and will now
make a pass at
… creating tests - that's my plan for this coming week, and I
will try to deal with
… the reopened issue 200.
… If I get through those then I will also make a stab at
getting one set of implementations
… done on TTT/TTV/TTPE so we'll see where that stands this time
next week.
Nigel: I wonder if we can seek group agreement for things we
don't need to test right now.
Glenn: Unless someone disagrees, then there are no objections.
Nigel: I agree, let's highlight the issues are open and ask
people to review them.
[14]TTML2 tests
[14] https://github.com/w3c/ttml2-tests/issues
Cyril: Can we recap on the status?
Glenn: No new PRs. I created issues for all the TTML2 PRs
except those I marked as
… untestable.
Cyril: How many were untestable?
Glenn: I think maybe 1..2..3 - ttml2#1099, ttml2#1109 and
ttml2#1096,
… and that's it at the moment.
Cyril: I agree they are not testable on those three.
Nigel: I think I did as well.
Glenn: Overall I created 7 new issues, and I will proceed with
creating PRs in the ttml2-tests
… repository specifying new tests.
… In most of those issues I created a comment that suggested a
possible test approach.
Nigel: For at least one where there wasn't such a comment I
added one.
… I'd ask everyone to review the 2nd Ed changes and verify that
they're happy with the
… proposed test approach.
Glenn: Thanks for that. I see you also raised an issue on
TTML2, and I found another editorial one, so we have
… a couple of changes there.
Tests in general
Cyril: Question about tests in general. When I was reviewing
the tests, especially all the
… IMSC 1.1 tests I discovered we have lots of places where
there are tests.
… I wonder if after this effort of going to CR we could create
a single repo maybe with
… git submodules, and then annotating which tests should pass
in which version of which
… spec would be really helpful to implementers.
Glenn: Those tests are not for implementers so I would say a
big N O.
… The sole purpose of the tests is to pass CR.
Cyril: Still a single place for the tests would be really
useful.
Glenn: I agree but tests for implementers is a completely
different effort and a significant
… effort too. FYI the structure of the tests there now are
mostly bound to at least some
… implementations used during the verification process to get
to Rec and it would let's say
… break downstream systems for verifying them, e.g. TTT if we
moved them.
… If we want to maintain TTV being able to perform verification
on TTML1 and TTML2 it
… would break things. If we don't care about maintaining TTV
then that's a different story.
Nigel: One path out of this would be to filter and copy
existing tests into a new place,
… and consider the marketing value of doing that - for example
we may want to put them
… into Web Platform Tests.
Glenn: We should think about why we are doing this - I think it
is a worthy project to make
… interoperability tests but we would need to know who would
back and fund it.
… The idea of web platform tests is a good one. That project if
I recall was backed by a whole
… slew of organisations and funding from facebook and others if
I recall correctly, to build
… the infrastructure to do that. It's a nice idea, but it
doesn't sound right to me to take
… what we have now and restructure it.
AOB - DST switch
github: [15]https://github.com/w3c/ttwg/issues/103
[15] https://github.com/w3c/ttwg/issues/103
Nigel: Looking at the votes on the 3 options we have 4, 4 and
3.
Andreas: I signalled my presence but want to give a stronger
weight to people
… who regularly join and are more involved. I see for example
that Cyril has a clear
… preference for option 1. For me option 2 is better but option
1 is not impossible and
… also I have to admit that I often have blocking issues, if
that helps to make a decision.
Nigel: Thank you for that.
Cyril: I have a preference for option 1 but could live with
option 2 if needed.
Nigel: What do you think Gary?
Gary: I would like to leave it eventually in my local time
because of a block of meetings
… on Thursday mornings.
Nigel: I think it's important that Chairs can attend!
… I could make it either way.
Cyril: One thing to bear in mind is that we sometimes have a 2
hour session. Which is easier
… in that case?
Nigel: For me that makes no difference.
Gary: If we extend an hour after that might be easier.
Nigel: The hour before was a historical thing from when we used
to begin at 1500 UTC.
… (actually 1100 Boston)
Atsushi: I have a clash an hour before so it would be easier if
we make 2 hour meetings
… extend later.
Nigel: Shall we say option 2?
Gary: There don't seem to be any objections.
Nigel: There were no down-votes. So that's done.
… Thanks everyone, I will adjust the meetings to suit.
SUMMARY: Option 2 selected.
Nigel: This means that for all the remaining meetings in March
the start time will be 1600 UTC.
Pierre: Can I suggest you send an Outlook invite for the next
few meetings?
Nigel: Will do.
Pierre: Thanks.
Glenn: On 2nd April it will be one hour later?
Nigel: No, earlier, 1500.
Atsushi: I will check the TTWG website too.
Nigel: And we should reissue the joining instructions too.
… The webex schedule might need adjusting too - I will cover
that offline.
Meeting close
Nigel: Thanks everyone, let's adjourn there, having completed
our agenda.
… Meet same time UTC next week. [adjourns meeting]
Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by
[16]scribe.perl version 104 (Sat Dec 7 01:59:30 2019 UTC).
[16] https://w3c.github.io/scribe2/scribedoc.html
Received on Thursday, 5 March 2020 17:16:45 UTC