IRC log of tt on 2013-11-15

Timestamps are in UTC.

00:34:01 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #tt
00:34:01 [RRSAgent]
logging to
00:34:02 [glenn_]
glenn_ has joined #tt
00:34:03 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs public
00:34:03 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #tt
00:34:05 [trackbot]
Zakim, this will be TTML
00:34:05 [Zakim]
ok, trackbot; I see Vide_TTML()8:00PM scheduled to start in 26 minutes
00:34:06 [trackbot]
Meeting: Timed Text Working Group Teleconference
00:34:06 [trackbot]
Date: 15 November 2013
00:36:18 [mijordan]
mijordan has joined #tt
00:37:08 [olivier]
olivier has joined #tt
00:38:00 [nigel]
zakim, call taishan
00:38:00 [Zakim]
ok, nigel; the call is being made
00:39:12 [nigel]
zakim, call taishan
00:39:12 [Zakim]
ok, nigel; the call is being made
00:40:55 [tmichel]
tmichel has joined #tt
00:42:19 [tmichel]
zakim, call taishan
00:42:19 [Zakim]
ok, tmichel; the call is being made
00:42:51 [pal]
pal has joined #tt
00:45:23 [glenn]
zakim, call 0118675582938299
00:45:23 [Zakim]
I am sorry, glenn; I do not know a number for 0118675582938299
00:46:06 [tmichel]
tmichel has joined #tt
00:46:21 [tmichel]
zakim, call taishan
00:46:21 [Zakim]
ok, tmichel; the call is being made
00:47:16 [Ralph]
Ralph has joined #tt
00:47:34 [glenn]
we should have the phone situation fixed shortly
00:47:47 [glenn]
zakim, who's on the phone?
00:47:47 [Zakim]
Vide_TTML()8:00PM has not yet started, glenn
00:47:48 [Zakim]
On IRC I see Ralph, tmichel, pal, olivier, mijordan, Zakim, RRSAgent, nigel, glenn, silvia, trackbot
00:47:56 [Ralph]
zakim, this will be ttml
00:47:56 [Zakim]
ok, Ralph; I see Vide_TTML()8:00PM scheduled to start in 13 minutes
00:48:28 [nigel]
Topic: Introductions
00:48:32 [igarashi]
igarashi has joined #tt
00:48:32 [nigel]
Nigel Megitt, BBC
00:48:44 [nigel]
Glenn Adams Cox
00:48:50 [igarashi]
Tatsuya Igarashi SONY
00:49:08 [pal]
Pierre-Anthony Lemieux, supported by MovieLabs
00:49:09 [tmichel]
Thierry Michel W3C
00:49:14 [mijordan]
I get the message that the conference is restricted.
00:49:16 [razybon]
razybon has joined #tt
00:49:41 [tmichel]
Present: Nigel, Glenn, Pierre Anthony, Thierry
00:50:05 [nigel]
chair: nigel
00:50:06 [olivier]
scribenick: olivier
00:50:16 [Zakim]
Vide_TTML()8:00PM has now started
00:50:17 [Zakim]
+ +1.617.766.aaaa
00:50:31 [Zakim]
00:50:33 [Zakim]
00:50:33 [Zakim]
00:50:34 [Zakim]
00:50:34 [mijordan]
I'm in.
00:50:42 [glenn]
00:50:52 [mijordan]
Michael Jordan, Adobe
00:50:56 [Zakim]
00:50:57 [Zakim]
00:50:57 [Zakim]
00:51:02 [Zakim]
00:51:25 [olivier]
glenn: presents slides on state of TTML1 Animation
00:51:31 [tmichel]
Present+ Sylvia
00:51:42 [yosuke]
yosuke has joined #tt
00:51:43 [Zakim]
00:52:17 [silvia]
silvia has joined #tt
00:52:19 [Ralph]
Ralph has left #tt
00:52:21 [Zakim]
- +1.617.766.aaaa
00:52:57 [Zakim]
00:53:00 [Zakim]
00:53:01 [Zakim]
00:54:41 [Noriya]
Noriya has joined #TT
00:54:49 [mijordan]
Zakim, mijordan is Adobe
00:54:49 [Zakim]
sorry, mijordan, I do not recognize a party named 'mijordan'
00:55:02 [mijordan]
Zakim, Adobe is mijordan
00:55:02 [Zakim]
+mijordan; got it
00:55:02 [tmichel]
topic:state of TTML1 Animation
00:55:23 [silvia1]
silvia1 has joined #tt
00:57:08 [Kepeng_Li]
Kepeng_Li has joined #tt
00:57:12 [olivier]
glenn: now moving to things we want to have in TTML2
00:57:35 [olivier]
Present+ Kepeng_Li
00:57:47 [olivier]
00:59:07 [olivier]
pal: want to question third assumption - about continuous animation
00:59:16 [olivier]
glenn: let's move on, will address later
00:59:42 [olivier]
nigel: the issues we are trying to tackle are on the agenda, we can address them in time
01:00:02 [olivier]
Present+ Giuseppe Pascale (Opera)
01:00:07 [glenn]
–  h8p://
01:00:18 [glenn]
01:02:39 [olivier]
q+ to ask if delegating complex animation to other tech wouldn't be a better idea
01:03:14 [olivier]
01:05:53 [nigel]
01:05:58 [olivier]
glenn: still presenting from, now on slide 10
01:06:14 [olivier]
glenn: change proposal -
01:07:10 [silvia]
silvia has joined #tt
01:11:12 [olivier]
glenn: any question on element targeting?
01:11:36 [olivier]
glenn: most of the issues will be discussed in the next section
01:11:56 [olivier]
... issue of target element was raised by Sean
01:13:22 [nigel]
01:14:35 [olivier]
pal: who filed this issue and cared about this?
01:14:58 [olivier]
... re -
01:15:08 [olivier]
pal: have action item to follow up with Mike Dolan on this
01:15:21 [olivier]
... feedback was - it doesn't seem to be an urgent requirement
01:16:53 [olivier]
mijordan: concern in not having something like this
01:17:18 [olivier]
... having a shorthand way to define this like CSS does
01:17:27 [olivier]
... could be a better way and reduce complexity
01:17:44 [giuseppep]
giuseppep has joined #tt
01:18:04 [pal]
01:18:12 [olivier]
glenn: agree
01:18:21 [nigel]
ack pal
01:18:29 [olivier]
pal: one of the proposals is to allow sequence of set commands
01:18:54 [igarashi]
igarashi has joined #tt
01:19:40 [olivier]
pal: previous slides had suggestions on how to address that
01:19:48 [olivier]
... without need for continuous animation
01:20:20 [olivier]
mijordan: is the transition between css animation and our syntax going to be a problem then?
01:20:25 [pal]
@giuseppep yes, it was filed in 2008
01:20:31 [olivier]
glenn: this problem has come up so many times in the past
01:20:37 [olivier]
... seems a no-brainer to me
01:20:57 [olivier]
... implementations are already there
01:21:05 [olivier]
... we just need to integrate it so it's reasonably useful
01:21:33 [olivier]
... if you want to do smooth animation of opacity
01:21:40 [olivier]
... you'd end up with a lot of set elements
01:22:06 [olivier]
mijordan: dealing with discrete steps is more processor intensive and painful
01:22:29 [olivier]
glenn: implementations are starting to use GPU for such animations
01:22:38 [olivier]
glenn: back to slide set
01:22:56 [glenn]
01:23:13 [olivier]
glenn: looking at current TTML2 draft
01:23:22 [olivier]
... does look quite complicated, there are a lot of attributes there
01:23:40 [olivier]
... people's comments has been "do we need all this complexity"
01:24:04 [olivier]
glenn: went through CSS animations
01:24:12 [olivier]
... with @@
01:24:23 [olivier]
... we looked at what was supported by CSS animations
01:24:29 [olivier]
... and which were syntactic sugar
01:24:45 [olivier]
... conclusion was we could remove about 8 of these attributes, for different reasons
01:26:05 [olivier]
... reducing parsing complexity, down to something similar to what set has
01:26:22 [olivier]
glenn: lists attributes which are different from set
01:26:28 [olivier]
... 5 attributes would be added
01:27:12 [olivier]
glenn: back to slode set. Now: continuous animation (2)
01:28:27 [olivier]
... accumulate and additive
01:28:43 [olivier]
... not currently supported by css animation. propose to defer support
01:31:04 [olivier]
... need to introduce multi-valued style property expression
01:31:57 [olivier]
glenn: next - repeatcount and repeatdur, both in SVG. propose only supporting repeatcount
01:32:21 [plh]
plh has joined #tt
01:33:53 [glenn]
01:35:24 [olivier]
glenn: shows examples of different calcmodes
01:35:35 [olivier]
... paced mode not necessary, can be expressed as linear
01:35:52 [igarashi]
igarashi has joined #tt
01:36:05 [olivier]
glenn: what next
01:36:22 [olivier]
... want to get buy-in to simplify by removing 8 attributes
01:36:55 [olivier]
... and not yet try to deal with the issue of supporting multiple contexts for out of line animations
01:37:39 [olivier]
... other issue was brought up by pal
01:38:18 [olivier]
link to the issue?
01:38:45 [nigel]
I don't think it's logged as an issue
01:38:46 [olivier]
glenn: right now we only have inline-form of set
01:39:11 [olivier]
glenn: two options
01:39:21 [olivier]
... 1 have out of line animate or set element poit to target element
01:39:34 [olivier]
... 2. have target element point at the animate or set element
01:39:39 [olivier]
01:39:42 [nigel]
q+ pal
01:39:52 [olivier]
... latter more consistent with the way we currently do
01:40:02 [nigel]
ack pal
01:40:07 [olivier]
pal: that was not part of your proposal
01:40:16 [olivier]
glenn: no proposal in writing
01:40:25 [olivier]
pal: [looking for issue]
01:41:03 [nigel]
01:41:03 [trackbot]
issue-227 -- <p> fade-up and –down -- closed
01:41:03 [trackbot]
01:41:16 [olivier]
pal: it's issue-227 -
01:42:05 [olivier]
glenn: we closed it because thought it was a duplicate of issue-22
01:43:17 [olivier]
pal: can take action item to sort it out
01:44:10 [olivier]
... to reopen the issue and add details
01:44:17 [olivier]
glenn: suggest adding new issue
01:44:32 [olivier]
rrsagent, pointer?
01:44:32 [RRSAgent]
01:45:02 [glenn]
proposed issue title: permit reuse of animation constructs by allowing multiple content elements to reference same out-of-line animation declaration
01:45:38 [glenn]
... this reuses the same semantics as TTML uses for style/layout, where content elements point at style/layout, and not other way around
01:45:42 [olivier]
nigel: there was a proposal in presentation
01:45:54 [olivier]
... to acheive same functionality by @@
01:46:40 [olivier]
pal: happy with issue text/title suggestion
01:46:59 [glenn]
raise issue: Permit reuse of animation construct(s) by allowing multiple content elements to reference same out-of-line animation declaration
01:47:30 [nigel]
action: pal to raise this issue
01:47:30 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-239 - Raise this issue [on Pierre-Anthony Lemieux - due 2013-11-22].
01:47:45 [olivier]
nigel: time check
01:48:12 [olivier]
glenn: have already recorded editorial notes in the draft
01:48:20 [olivier]
... propose to implement those changes
01:48:58 [olivier]
nigel: any objections?
01:49:04 [olivier]
pal: none
01:49:31 [olivier]
resolution reached
01:49:38 [nigel]
Topic: Inline Regions
01:49:44 [nigel]
01:49:44 [trackbot]
issue-176 -- Adding support for extent and origin attributes on block elements -- open
01:49:44 [trackbot]
01:50:05 [olivier]
glenn: already in ttml2 draft
01:50:37 [olivier]
... section 7.1.4 div
01:51:04 [olivier]
... added layout.class in content for div
01:51:51 [nigel]
01:52:16 [olivier]
nigel: will that inherit any style attribute from anywhere?
01:52:24 [nigel]
01:52:26 [shoko_]
shoko_ has joined #tt
01:52:33 [olivier]
nigel: initial values are well defined
01:52:40 [olivier]
... inheritance is an open issue
01:53:14 [olivier]
01:53:14 [trackbot]
issue-277 -- Adding style inheritance for regions. -- open
01:53:14 [trackbot]
01:53:52 [olivier]
glenn: strong preference?
01:54:02 [olivier]
... inherit from layout element or root element?
01:54:14 [olivier]
glenn: we could have several layout elements
01:54:50 [olivier]
nigel: you imply that you could @@
01:55:03 [olivier]
[scribe missed discussion]
01:56:01 [olivier]
glenn: maybe we should defer, as not directly related to agenda item
01:56:07 [pal]
01:56:11 [olivier]
glenn: agenda is about use of shorthand properties
01:56:15 [olivier]
01:56:15 [trackbot]
issue-176 -- Adding support for extent and origin attributes on block elements -- open
01:56:15 [trackbot]
01:56:32 [nigel]
nigel: asks if referencing style from layout or tt:tt would override initial values.
01:56:35 [nigel]
glenn: no it wouldn't.
01:56:49 [mark_vickers]
mark_vickers has joined #tt
01:57:05 [olivier]
pal: did you capture why it would not be a good idea to do the same with attributes
01:57:24 [olivier]
glenn: discussed this in teleconferences, should be in minutes
01:57:46 [olivier]
pal: I'm aware of at least 1 software package that has been using shorthand on <p>s
01:58:05 [olivier]
mijordan: awaiting response from this software vendor
01:58:29 [silvia1]
silvia1 has joined #tt
01:58:52 [olivier]
pal: there is a significant catalogue of content generated by this software
01:59:03 [olivier]
glenn: think point is moot. effect is the same.
01:59:23 [olivier]
... we have great deal of semantics in document about how regions work
01:59:40 [olivier]
... if we wanted to describe this use, we'd have to redefine how region work
01:59:54 [olivier]
glenn: this simplifies specification
02:00:15 [olivier]
pal: this is going to break a lot of files
02:00:27 [olivier]
glenn: no - am going to add the shorthand that this company is using
02:00:33 [olivier]
mijordan: hadn't noticed that either
02:00:44 [olivier]
glenn: we have already decided to basically fork the shorthand
02:01:04 [olivier]
zakim, whu?
02:01:04 [Zakim]
I don't understand your question, olivier.
02:01:16 [olivier]
02:01:48 [olivier]
pal: let's capture exactly what you said, make that a proposal
02:01:51 [olivier]
... and we can move on
02:01:56 [olivier]
glenn: already agreed
02:02:10 [olivier]
... wantedto make sure people were clear on this
02:02:15 [olivier]
...that it won't break existing uses
02:02:22 [olivier]
... albeit proprietary and illegal
02:02:49 [olivier]
glenn: I already have action to implement this
02:02:59 [olivier]
... don't think anything more is needed
02:03:07 [olivier]
02:03:07 [trackbot]
action-215 -- Glenn Adams to Specify special semantics for tts:{extent, origin} on content elements to map to new inline region feature -- due 2013-10-10 -- OPEN
02:03:07 [trackbot]
02:03:32 [olivier]
glenn: don't think we need new resolution
02:03:42 [olivier]
pal: at least someone should respond to michael
02:03:49 [olivier]
glenn: think I already have
02:03:54 [olivier]
pal: should be recorded in thje isdue
02:04:04 [olivier]
s/thje isdue/the issue/
02:04:55 [igarashi]
igarashi has joined #tt
02:05:11 [glenn]
ISSUE-176: Note that Action-215 will adopt support for tts:{extent,origin} directly on <p> as a shorthand for specifying an inline region.
02:05:11 [trackbot]
Notes added to ISSUE-176 Adding support for extent and origin attributes on block elements.
02:06:11 [olivier]
nigel: review agenda -
02:06:29 [olivier]
pal: can we close action-205?
02:06:36 [nigel]
02:06:36 [trackbot]
issue-205 -- TTML probably shouldn't have adopted xml:id instead of id. -- open
02:06:36 [trackbot]
02:06:44 [nigel]
02:06:44 [trackbot]
action-205 -- Michael Jordan to Forward this solution to relevant implementers for their input -- due 2013-09-26 -- OPEN
02:06:44 [trackbot]
02:07:17 [olivier]
pal: suggestion to close 205
02:07:22 [shoko]
shoko has joined #tt
02:07:27 [olivier]
glenn: close as OBE
02:08:14 [olivier]
nigel: your suggestion is equivalent to what was implemented?
02:08:54 [olivier]
glenn: yes, that's the intent
02:09:36 [olivier]
topic: Readability and IMSC redux
02:09:41 [olivier]
02:09:41 [trackbot]
ISSUE-286 -- Extend the background area behind rendered text to improve readability -- open
02:09:41 [trackbot]
02:09:55 [olivier]
nigel: discussed a little on Monday
02:10:52 [olivier]
... about extending background around rendered text
02:11:04 [glenn]
02:11:09 [olivier]
... subtle difference betweenn what this does and what this achieves
02:11:21 [olivier]
nigel: demo
02:11:41 [olivier]
nigel: demo resizing the viewport
02:11:52 [glenn]
02:11:55 [olivier]
... when shrinking, new line appears but without the extra padding
02:13:19 [olivier]
glenn: shows ublic/public-tt/2013Nov/0031.html
02:14:26 [olivier]
nigel: promising
02:14:38 [olivier]
... if we can translate that into TTML syntax
02:14:47 [olivier]
... we will have achieved requirement
02:14:59 [olivier]
nigel: going back to padding issue
02:15:15 [olivier]
... this padding would affect layout, whereas request from EBU was that it should not
02:15:36 [olivier]
... think this is minor issue
02:16:10 [silvia]
silvia has joined #tt
02:16:23 [olivier]
glenn: depends if you want to stick to what can be mapped with CSS
02:16:49 [olivier]
... questionalble and risky path
02:17:00 [olivier]
... if browsers are just going to use CSS to render TTML
02:17:09 [olivier]
02:17:37 [olivier]
glenn: two ways
02:17:50 [olivier]
... 1. define real padding and align properties and define how they map to CSS
02:18:06 [olivier]
... 2. or use properties that are already there, on content element
02:18:29 [olivier]
... however we didn't add anything to do the cloning of padding
02:19:37 [olivier]
glenn:similar for row align
02:20:19 [olivier]
nigel: with EBU hat on, would be nice if there was compatibility
02:20:29 [olivier]
... but with TTWG hat on, is there any preference?
02:20:42 [olivier]
glenn: it requires more editing and syntax
02:21:21 [olivier]
... if instead of creating new row padding you use existing, burden of editing and testing is lower
02:21:41 [olivier]
nigel: but then so would the other option
02:21:47 [olivier]
mijordan: simple solution
02:22:15 [olivier]
... can be solved by using inline-block span element
02:22:31 [olivier]
glenn: in CSS?
02:22:46 [olivier]
mijordan: we don't have a way of defining margin on either side
02:22:56 [olivier]
... but a span as inline-block would just work
02:23:05 [pal]
(nice minutes, btw.)
02:23:05 [olivier]
glenn: two issues to disentangle
02:23:40 [olivier]
glenn: issue of whether or not we should expose lower level properties
02:23:49 [olivier]
... and let authors use them to do what they want
02:24:13 [olivier]
... or we could define a proprety that is like EBU-TT, such as rowpadding
02:24:19 [pal]
02:24:29 [olivier]
... and affected using a shorthand or a higeher-level expression which we map to CSS properties
02:24:44 [olivier]
pal: the same discussion has happened or will happen with image and background image support
02:24:47 [olivier]
ack pal
02:24:58 [olivier]
... you were thinking more of CSS style
02:25:03 [olivier]
... should we be consistent there?
02:25:17 [olivier]
glenn: in TTML1 we have not introduced any style properties
02:25:30 [olivier]
... extent and origin were the closest we came
02:25:36 [olivier]
... tried to avoid defining new properties
02:26:02 [olivier]
... if they are effectively shorthand for some subset of CSS or XSL-FO, it doesn't seem quite as bad as introducing completely new properties
02:26:12 [olivier]
... not adopting a fixed position on this at this point
02:26:25 [olivier]
pal: one data point is - some folks have already taken a specific approach
02:26:37 [olivier]
... we probably want to reulse what others have done
02:26:45 [olivier]
... unless there is a good reason not to do that
02:26:50 [Noriya]
Noriya has joined #TT
02:27:28 [olivier]
pal: am personally happy to have editor go back and look at those three and suggest consistent approach
02:27:46 [olivier]
nigel: we can do something sufficiently close to requirement with HTML and CSS
02:27:57 [olivier]
... now we need to translate it in TTML
02:28:36 [olivier]
glenn: my effort to come up with CSS examples was a first excercise
02:28:39 [olivier]
... useful
02:29:05 [olivier]
... we'd have to work around fact that diff browsers implement flex differently
02:29:28 [olivier]
glenn: if people want to propose, they should provide css/html that demonstrates it is feasible
02:29:34 [olivier]
mijordan: good way to deal with it
02:29:50 [olivier]
nigel: we have demonstrated we can do it
02:29:56 [olivier]
... now need to think about how
02:30:01 [olivier]
... issue remains open
02:30:21 [olivier]
glenn: action on me to propose and draft spec for some solution
02:30:36 [olivier]
pal: suggest have list of action-tpac-2013 for folks not here
02:30:47 [olivier]
nigel: [break]
02:30:55 [olivier]
rrsagent, draft minutes
02:30:55 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate olivier
02:31:16 [Zakim]
02:31:18 [olivier]
rrsagent, make logs public
02:31:24 [olivier]
rrsagent, draft minutes
02:31:24 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate olivier
02:31:29 [Zakim]
02:31:30 [Zakim]
Vide_TTML()8:00PM has ended
02:31:30 [Zakim]
Attendees were +1.617.766.aaaa, Ralph, Taishan, mijordan
02:31:43 [olivier]
Present+ Olivier Thereaux (BBC)
02:57:28 [shoko]
shoko has joined #tt
02:57:43 [nigel]
trackbot, start meeting
02:57:45 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs public
02:57:47 [trackbot]
Zakim, this will be TTML
02:57:47 [Zakim]
ok, trackbot; I see Vide_TTML()8:00PM scheduled to start 117 minutes ago
02:57:48 [trackbot]
Meeting: Timed Text Working Group Teleconference
02:57:48 [trackbot]
Date: 15 November 2013
02:57:56 [nigel]
zakim, call taishan
02:57:56 [Zakim]
ok, nigel; the call is being made
02:57:57 [Zakim]
Vide_TTML()8:00PM has now started
02:57:58 [Zakim]
02:58:08 [dsinger_]
dsinger_ has joined #tt
02:58:42 [pal]
pal has joined #tt
03:00:11 [Zakim]
+ +1.617.766.aaaa
03:00:15 [Zakim]
03:00:16 [Zakim]
03:00:16 [israelh]
israelh has joined #TT
03:00:35 [dsinger_]
zaki, who is here?
03:00:39 [pal_]
pal_ has joined #tt
03:00:40 [dsinger_]
zakim, who is here?
03:00:40 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Taishan, +1.617.766.aaaa
03:00:41 [Zakim]
On IRC I see pal_, israelh, pal, dsinger_, shoko, Noriya, silvia, plh, giuseppep, yosuke, razybon, olivier, mijordan, Zakim, RRSAgent, nigel, glenn, trackbot
03:01:38 [nigel]
scribeNick: nigel
03:01:43 [nigel]
chair: dsinger
03:01:55 [nigel]
nigel: welcome Silvia and David to TTWG!
03:02:03 [nigel]
dsinger: it's a pleasure to be here
03:02:19 [nigel]
... introduces topics from agenda
03:02:24 [nigel]
topic: WebVTT
03:03:04 [nigel]
silvia: introduces herself. Editor of the spec, taken over from Ian Hickson
03:03:08 [plh3]
plh3 has joined #tt
03:03:47 [tmichel]
tmichel has joined #tt
03:03:48 [nigel]
03:04:13 [nigel]
+Present, cyril, plh
03:06:01 [plh3]
rrsagent, generate minutes
03:06:01 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate plh3
03:06:29 [nigel]
silvia: the spec and editor's draft are currently identical
03:06:40 [nigel]
... THere's no WhatWG version now.
03:06:59 [plh3]
Present+ Israel
03:07:34 [nigel]
page: WebVTT Features
03:07:44 [nigel]
silvia: Why WebVTT?
03:07:56 [nigel]
... We wanted something in track element in HTML5 to provide timeline cues.
03:08:27 [nigel]
... For audio descriptions, chapters, subtitles, other timed metadata
03:08:44 [nigel]
... CEA 608/708 Features all met.
03:08:52 [plh3]
zakim, aaaa is mijordan
03:08:52 [Zakim]
+mijordan; got it
03:09:27 [nigel]
nigel: WSTTeletext?
03:10:01 [nigel]
silvia: at the beginning we looked at a lot, but haven't verified against teletext
03:10:27 [nigel]
plh: how does the concept of chapter relate to MPEG4?
03:10:32 [nigel]
silvia: it's like DVD chapters
03:10:40 [nigel]
plh: what do you expose to users?
03:10:46 [nigel]
silvia: depends on what tracks you put in
03:11:25 [cyril]
cyril has joined #tt
03:11:26 [nigel]
dsinger: we expect the author to resolve conflicts
03:11:40 [cyril]
RRSAgent, pointer
03:11:40 [RRSAgent]
03:11:51 [nigel]
silvia: we must satisfy legal requirements
03:11:57 [igarashi]
igarashi has joined #tt
03:12:14 [nigel]
... captions and subtitles implemented more than other user interface elements for that reason.
03:12:30 [nigel]
... we have menus for captions and subtitles to select desired tracks
03:12:45 [nigel]
... We wanted to allow the web page developer to override formatting in the caption with CSS
03:12:57 [nigel]
... Anything that's rendered on the webpage should be overridable by CSS
03:13:03 [dsinger_]
we've certainly had (in the past) pop-up menus on the controller showing chapter names (e.g. for DVD) but I don't know the state or the plan for <track> chapter lists
03:13:14 [nigel]
... We have some extensions that should at some point be brought back into HTML
03:13:26 [nigel]
03:13:46 [nigel]
dsinger: lots of work has been to meet FCC requirements and bugs have been filed and resolved.
03:13:58 [nigel]
plh: asks re bugs
03:14:08 [nigel]
silvia: about to get there
03:14:30 [nigel]
silvia: FCC reqs lead us to introducing regions. Browsers didn't all agree, but now seem to be implementing.
03:14:49 [nigel]
... req is for roll-up and padding, and to allow changes in background colour.
03:15:50 [nigel]
nigel: why was a new format needed for text track cues?
03:16:21 [nigel]
silvia: it could have been done in js but that didn't meet usability requirements. when analysing existing formats the browsers didn't like any of them including TTML.
03:17:14 [nigel]
silvia: it's not a bad position, with WebVTT being good for distribution and TTML more widely applicable.
03:17:20 [nigel]
israel: which browsers?
03:17:30 [nigel]
silvia: all of them. I did try to get them to use TTML but it wasn't acceptable.
03:17:44 [nigel]
israel: we have an implementation that supports SDP.
03:18:08 [nigel]
silvia: apologies yes MS IE does support.
03:18:14 [nigel]
plh: MS did object
03:18:37 [nigel]
dsinger: both formats are useful and offer functionality to the industry.
03:18:49 [nigel]
silvia: re MS, different parts of the org had different opinions
03:18:57 [nigel]
page - bugs
03:19:14 [plh3]
s/MS did object/IE team was uncomfortable with it for some time before implementing it/
03:19:18 [nigel]
silvia: 46 bugs now. summaries by category
03:20:59 [nigel]
silvia: we want to complete functionality change issues before handover to WG. And have clear IPR position.
03:21:12 [nigel]
... so want to close off some issues before handover.
03:21:18 [nigel]
silvia: 3 blockers
03:21:34 [dsinger_]
we wanted to be clear of the features agreed and have them reflected in the spec., so that the IPR situation was as clear as possible. having stuff agreed in the CG but not represented in the document would have led to a slightly blurry situation
03:21:46 [mark_vickers]
mark_vickers has joined #tt
03:23:12 [nigel]
silvia: want to close off the syntax change, bugs/underspecced and flesh-out text issues before handover. The first 3 are blockers, the next 34 can be dealt with in the WG
03:23:33 [nigel]
... We can go to rec without the 8 new feature requests
03:23:41 [nigel]
... the last 1 is an editor's bug
03:23:50 [nigel]
dsinger: are these categories in the tracker?
03:24:27 [nigel]
silvia: no, I should probably add some categories or classifications or keywords
03:24:39 [nigel]
action: silvia to add keywords to bugs in tracker
03:24:39 [trackbot]
Error finding 'silvia'. You can review and register nicknames at <>.
03:25:44 [nigel]
note for minutes that silvia has action to add keywords to bugs in tracker
03:26:02 [nigel]
nigel: there's some admin to do in combining the groups!
03:26:28 [nigel]
next slide: demos
03:27:15 [nigel]
silvia: CPC has done some work - nb firefox doesn't support webvtt
03:29:12 [nigel_]
nigel_ has joined #tt
03:29:22 [nigel_]
next slide: tools
03:31:07 [nigel_]
silvia: extensions in js - pull up my repository to experiment
03:31:14 [nigel_]
next slide: implementations
03:31:46 [nigel_]
silvia: there's a track element in HTML5 that uses WebVTT as one of the file formats to get cues into the browser. Supported in all browsers (firefox nightly not release)
03:31:54 [nigel_]
... IE doesn't support regions yet
03:32:21 [nigel_]
... Chrome has implemented regions behind the flag
03:32:47 [nigel_]
... Safari has it too, as they were based on same rendering engine
03:32:51 [nigel_]
... Opera also
03:33:12 [nigel_]
... Opera was first to implement full WebVTT spec. Implementor is now part of the blink community.
03:33:33 [nigel_]
glenn: the region support is not yet in the shipping version of chrome - will be in the new version of Chrome32 supported by runtime flags.
03:33:41 [nigel_]
... currently behind a compile time flag
03:34:19 [nigel_]
silvia: Firefox is working on it. Developer meetup at the weekend: all of the browsers except IE will be discussing state of VTT implementation. At FORMS workshop in SF
03:34:23 [nigel_]
glenn: link in IRC?
03:34:27 [silvia]
03:34:36 [nigel_]
03:35:13 [nigel_]
next slide: REC track
03:36:10 [nigel_]
silvia: Process. How to make WebVTT a ratified standard? Been talking about it in W3C. Come to an agreement to bring into TTWG as part of the re-charter.
03:36:41 [nigel_]
dsinger: The transition process. The CG process is not the same as the WG process. In CGs members only give royalty free grants on their own contributions.
03:37:15 [nigel_]
... There's a Final Spec Agreement process to allow the chair to extend the IPR commitment to the whole document. To do that transition it's well advised if not mandatory to have a clear IPR position
03:37:23 [nigel_]
... before bringing into the WG.
03:37:44 [nigel_]
... I have approval from Apple to sign. I'm eager to start the process and confident that others will follow suit.
03:37:54 [nigel_]
silvia: and I need to complete those issues!
03:38:14 [glenn]
03:38:17 [nigel_]
dsinger: that will then become a public draft. We can then move into normal Rec track issues.
03:39:07 [nigel_]
... We need to think about mapping from TTML to VTT and the reverse. Sean Hayes came up with a good point that we should discuss common semantic models.
03:39:26 [israelh]
03:39:30 [israelh]
03:39:32 [dsinger_]
03:39:57 [mark_vickers]
mark_vickers has joined #tt
03:40:06 [nigel_]
glenn: re the FSA you're going to use that to go to the Rec track. Then the question arises re continuing development. My understanding is that folks would mostly like to continue
03:40:27 [nigel_]
... in the CG. Does that mean that every transfer from CG to WG has to have its own FSA?
03:40:57 [nigel_]
dsinger: that's what I would do. An outstanding question is how we maintain the CG and WG docs, it's hard work for the editor.
03:41:04 [nigel_]
all: why do both?
03:41:20 [nigel_]
dsinger: use CG for experimental bits only
03:41:37 [pal_]
03:41:42 [nigel_]
silvia: there are many CG members who are not W3C members so we can't force them into the TTWG
03:41:54 [cyril]
ack glenn
03:41:55 [nigel_]
... I'd prefer them in the WG and have the discussions there.
03:41:59 [igarashi]
igarashi has joined #tt
03:42:13 [nigel_]
ack israel
03:42:36 [nigel_]
israel: I understand that the CG purpose is to migrate into the WG eventually. That doesn't prevent creation of other CGs that are in parallel or build on this.
03:42:44 [nigel_]
... to have both seems redundant process-wise.
03:42:55 [cyril]
03:43:01 [nigel_]
giuseppep: isn't it going to create more frgmentation?
03:43:05 [nigel_]
ack pal
03:43:20 [dsinger_]
03:43:25 [nigel_]
pal: the goal of the WG is to be the single place
03:43:29 [nigel_]
silvia: the CG has the same goal
03:43:32 [pal_]
03:43:36 [nigel_]
wide objections to the idea that they can do the same thing
03:44:00 [nigel_]
israel: is it fair to say we should get a view from plh?
03:44:01 [dsinger_]
03:44:02 [nigel_]
dsinger: yes
03:44:07 [nigel_]
ack cyril
03:44:39 [nigel_]
cyril: the work of the two teams should be clearly distinguished e.g. call the CG 'extensions'
03:44:43 [nigel_]
ack pal
03:44:51 [silvia]
03:44:59 [nigel_]
pal: the setup of the groups defines what they can achieve re international standards
03:45:03 [cyril]
03:45:11 [cyril]
ack dsinger_
03:45:25 [nigel_]
dsinger: we can have a CG for experimental discussions and even generate reports into the WG. I doubt we will need 2 specifications in the future.
03:45:48 [nigel_]
... we'll have an active community. We should only discuss forking specs when that situation arises.
03:46:00 [nigel_]
israel: hasn't this happened before with WhatWG?
03:46:03 [nigel_]
ack silvia
03:46:05 [dsinger_]
03:46:08 [dsinger_]
03:46:21 [dsinger_]
03:46:37 [nigel_]
silvia: there's a big misunderstanding here. Any CG developments will be extension specs - it's not that both will work on the same spec. That would be a nightmare for me to maintain.
03:46:53 [nigel_]
... This is why we're doing a FSA so that by that time it's feature complete and any new discussions will create new features.
03:47:05 [nigel_]
... we've done extension specs before e.g. regions.
03:47:07 [nigel_]
03:47:12 [glenn]
03:47:20 [nigel_]
Present+ Mark Vickers
03:47:39 [nigel_]
silvia: we can also take views from implementors.
03:47:44 [nigel_]
ack dsinger
03:48:03 [nigel_]
dsinger: in the process of doing this it's a first for W3C to go from CG to WG. Let's set a good example.
03:48:07 [dsinger_]
03:48:37 [nigel_]
ack nigel
03:48:40 [israelh]
03:48:42 [israelh]
03:48:53 [nigel_]
nigel: how will you resolve requirements inputs from both the CG and mapping from TTML?
03:49:02 [pal_]
03:49:26 [nigel_]
silvia: the people interested in each format (VTT and TTML) overlap but are separate. I'd like to keep the ...
03:49:36 [nigel_]
dsinger: TTWG keeps its discussions in public.
03:50:02 [nigel_]
silvia: I've heard that people don't want to pollute the TTWG mailing list with VTT issues. Both lists are public and can be referenced.
03:50:18 [nigel_]
dsinger: there may be a best practice email header
03:50:21 [nigel_]
ack glenn
03:50:50 [silvia]
03:50:57 [nigel_]
glenn: one reason for bringing the two groups together is to increase shared understanding. To that extent two mailing lists may be a barrier. On the other hand it's an evolutionary process.
03:51:00 [pal_]
03:51:24 [nigel_]
... We can move forward one step at a time. Nobody on TTWG has said they don't want to see VTT. Actually neither group has a lot of traffic compared to some.
03:51:26 [nigel_]
03:51:42 [dsinger_]
q+ to talk about list use
03:51:50 [nigel_]
glenn: because TTWG is public anyone can join the list without being a group member.
03:52:00 [n1362]
n1362 has joined #tt
03:52:05 [dsinger_]
03:52:12 [glenn]
ack glenn
03:52:35 [nigel_]
dsinger: I'm sure I'll be talking with nigel about feature mismatches and if they are likely to be shared or not, and suggest actions to share info.
03:53:02 [nigel_]
silvia: in HTML WG they created spec-related mailing lists for task forces. We can consider the CG a task force.
03:53:07 [nigel_]
heads nod
03:53:19 [nigel_]
ack israelh
03:53:25 [dsinger_]
I expect the chairs to be steering conversations to the appropriate mailing list - e.g. far-off features to the CG, bugs in the text to the WG
03:53:46 [nigel_]
israelh: I'd like to explore the inter-transformation between TTML and WebVTT and the mappings. Enthusiastic about this work.
03:54:14 [dsinger_]
03:54:15 [silvia]
ack me
03:56:00 [nigel_]
... the more we can see how these come together the easier it is to justify spending internally
03:56:03 [nigel_]
ack me
03:56:26 [nigel_]
nigel: we have great expertise in the two groups which we should make the most of for the sake of users and the audience.
03:56:29 [nigel_]
topic: testing
03:56:46 [nigel_]
silvia: we have no tests at the moment - there's a lot of work to do on the rec track here.
03:56:55 [nigel_]
glenn: opera has lots of tests that are available.
03:57:09 [nigel_]
silvia: there are lots available they're just not part of the W3C suite.
03:57:18 [nigel_]
dsinger: it would be good to have a test lead.
03:57:38 [nigel_]
glenn: cyril seems like a good candidate.
03:58:26 [nigel_]
israelh: re the review of status you mentioned regulatory mappings. Can you give a summary of how closely they're met?
03:58:45 [nigel_]
dsinger: we should pull up the bug/wiki page.
03:59:24 [silvia]
03:59:31 [nigel_]
... we went through the text of the FCC ruling which was very specific about some features based on 608. We tried 5-10 designs to meet roll-up and regions but they didn't meet the word of the
03:59:47 [nigel_]
... regulations. We ended up just meeting them very precisely.
04:00:18 [nigel_]
israelh: we were doing that too with TTML, so it would be good to get feedback on how user controls to overwrite specifications map to the regulations
04:00:31 [silvia]
04:00:37 [nigel_]
silvia: There's more than one spec in the CG. I have a 608 to WebVTT spec (link above)
04:00:47 [nigel_]
ack silvia
04:00:49 [nigel_]
04:01:26 [nigel_]
silvia: We walked through all the issues and collected them into the spec.
04:01:34 [silvia]
04:01:59 [nigel_]
04:02:03 [nigel_]
04:02:18 [nigel_]
nigel: did you consider performance as part of the 608 regulatory work?
04:02:37 [nigel_]
silvia: WebVTT is simple enough that the performance should be fine.
04:02:44 [nigel_]
... But nobody has ever done any measurements.
04:02:55 [silvia]
… we've only taken subparts of the HTML/CSS feature set
04:03:20 [nigel_]
dsinger: We should review the regulatory compliance again especially wrt user controls
04:03:50 [cyril]
04:04:27 [nigel_]
israelh: another interesting topic is, from the apps world, once the user configures the settings should there be an API to query them?
04:04:51 [nigel_]
silvia: the indy UI people are looking at this.
04:05:03 [nigel_]
dsinger: you can react to a visual acuity problem for example.
04:05:13 [cyril]
s/indy UI/Indie UI/
04:05:26 [nigel_]
nigel: timecheck
04:05:38 [dsinger_]
I should also mention the MPEG work for packing TTML and VTT into 'MP4' files: ISO/IEC 14496-30 Information technology — Coding of audio-visual objects — Part 30: Timed text and other visual overlays in ISO base media file format
04:06:01 [nigel_]
group thanks cyril for making that happen
04:06:18 [Zakim]
04:06:22 [nigel_]
group breaks for lunch
04:06:44 [nigel_]
rrsagent, make minutes
04:06:44 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate nigel_
04:07:05 [nigel_]
rrsagent, publish minutes
04:07:05 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate nigel_
04:07:14 [nigel_]
rrsagent, make log public
04:08:27 [Zakim]
04:08:28 [Zakim]
Vide_TTML()8:00PM has ended
04:08:28 [Zakim]
Attendees were Taishan, +1.617.766.aaaa, mijordan
05:02:39 [nigel]
nigel has joined #tt
05:02:48 [nigel]
trackbot, start meeting
05:02:50 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs public
05:02:52 [trackbot]
Zakim, this will be TTML
05:02:52 [Zakim]
ok, trackbot; I see Vide_TTML()8:00PM scheduled to start 242 minutes ago
05:02:53 [trackbot]
Meeting: Timed Text Working Group Teleconference
05:02:53 [trackbot]
Date: 15 November 2013
05:03:09 [pal_]
pal_ has joined #tt
05:04:18 [dsinger]
dsinger has joined #tt
05:04:28 [cyril]
cyril has joined #tt
05:05:11 [silvia]
silvia has joined #tt
05:05:41 [israelh]
israelh has joined #TT
05:07:37 [Noriya]
Noriya has joined #TT
05:08:01 [silvia]
scribe: silvia
05:08:17 [silvia]
Topic: Converging WebVTT and TTML
05:08:35 [silvia]
nigel: what are sensible deliverables in the area of convergence
05:08:42 [silvia]
… feeds into the roadmap discussion at 2pm
05:08:45 [pal]
pal has joined #tt
05:09:07 [silvia]
… we could start with a quick summary of the underlying models
05:09:09 [pal]
05:09:21 [silvia]
dsinger: was raised by Sean
05:09:33 [silvia]
… could ask silvia to give a quick overview of the WebVTTmodel
05:09:45 [silvia]
… then glenn with a model for TTML
05:09:59 [silvia]
pal: I'd like to understand what the question is that we're trying to answer
05:10:01 [giuseppep_]
giuseppep_ has joined #tt
05:10:34 [silvia]
nigel: we're trying to work out the best deliverables for the WG given the co-existence of TTML and WebVTT
05:11:05 [silvia]
dsinger: I think Sean wanted a semantic conversion to make sure we get commonality in behaviour
05:11:13 [cyril]
05:11:19 [silvia]
… if there are needless differences, we can iron them out
05:11:41 [pal]
05:11:59 [tmichel]
tmichel has joined #tt
05:12:08 [silvia]
mark: the Web & TV interest group had a task force that was tasked with that
05:12:13 [silvia]
there's a link on the agenda
05:12:21 [silvia]
05:12:33 [silvia]
nigel: might be the best starting point
05:12:52 [silvia]
plh: hi - I cannot be in this room from 2 onwards
05:13:14 [silvia]
[room discussed to maybe jump straight to the charter]
05:13:40 [silvia]
nigel: let's reorder the two topics
05:13:57 [silvia]
Topic: TTWG Roadmap
05:13:57 [dsinger]
we now move to Charter Revision
05:14:01 [dsinger]
05:14:03 [igarashi]
igarashi has joined #tt
05:14:06 [cyril]
05:14:22 [plh]
plh has joined #tt
05:14:24 [yosuke]
yosuke has joined #tt
05:14:55 [silvia]
plh: status was that we were ok with it but nigel had some comments that were not expressed
05:15:02 [silvia]
dsinger: let's just go through it
05:15:23 [silvia]
… plh - go ahead section by section
05:16:07 [silvia]
nigel: goal is to get to have this charter ready by the end of this session so we can move ahead with taking it to the AC?
05:16:25 [silvia]
plh: after submission to AC, there will be feedback from AC that needs to be addressed
05:16:33 [silvia]
dsinger: isn't the WG the first one that has to provide input?
05:16:39 [silvia]
plh: it was there 8 months ago
05:17:44 [silvia]
plh: initial chairs section is proposed to be adapted to contain Nigel and David
05:18:08 [silvia]
… nigel hasn't said "yes" yet
05:18:15 [silvia]
nigel: 4 things are important to me
05:18:17 [silvia]
… can I do it?
05:18:25 [silvia]
… have I met the people that I will be working with?
05:18:39 [silvia]
… is the group happy for me to do it?
05:18:46 [silvia]
… fourth … was a joke....
05:18:57 [silvia]
plh: I think he's capable of doing so
05:19:15 [silvia]
nigel: I am also a co-chair of the EBU subtitles group
05:19:23 [silvia]
… sometimes I will need to bring EBU input to the group
05:19:36 [silvia]
… we just need to be clear what hat I am wearing
05:19:43 [silvia]
… at any point in ti,e
05:19:49 [silvia]
05:20:19 [silvia]
glenn: let's replace the questionmarks with nigel
05:20:36 [silvia]
plh: Mark Sadecki will help with resolving a11y issues
05:21:12 [silvia]
… Thierry will continue to be the dedicated team contact
05:21:41 [silvia]
… plh is the official team contact and will make time as much as necessary
05:22:26 [silvia]
nigel: @@ will bring ITU a11y relationship into it, too
05:22:47 [plh]
05:23:23 [Noriya__]
Noriya__ has joined #TT
05:23:25 [silvia]
glenn: let's correct the name of the TTML spec
05:24:02 [silvia]
dsinger: can we remove the word "streamable" from the scope paragraph, since we are dealing with streamable and non-streamable content
05:24:40 [silvia]
nigel: we need to make sure it's streamable, because otherwise it's not useful
05:24:50 [silvia]
mark: this is scope, so let's not rule it out
05:25:03 [silvia]
[group decides to take out this word]
05:25:54 [silvia]
plh: 1.6 - the html mapping is part of the TTML2 spec
05:26:05 [silvia]
glenn: we may take it out … can we change the charter later?
05:26:37 [silvia]
plh: the way it's worded now, yes. it's on the rec track now
05:27:26 [silvia]
glenn: I've already drafted a ttml1 API spec and am working on a ttml2 API spec for JS API
05:27:35 [silvia]
… we could fold these into the TTML spec or publish separately
05:27:41 [silvia]
… should be included in the scope though
05:27:59 [silvia]
cyril: is this part of what we main by HTML mapping?
05:28:05 [silvia]
plh: yes
05:28:23 [silvia]
dsinger: includes CSS?
05:28:39 [silvia]
plh: includes a mapping to CSS, but not CSS itself
05:29:20 [silvia]
cyril: what does it mean to describe a document as HTML5
05:29:37 [silvia]
… I understand what synchronic document means, i.e. a mapping
05:30:12 [silvia]
glenn: in TTML2 we will have 2 mappings, one XSL-FO and a HTML-CSS mapping
05:30:39 [silvia]
plh: but we didn't define styling in TTML1
05:31:04 [silvia]
glenn: we use XSL-FO as our didactic framework for explaining what mapping means
05:31:20 [silvia]
… what brought this up is that WebVTT maps to HTML and CSS
05:31:25 [silvia]
… we're now doing the same for TTML
05:32:04 [silvia]
cyril: let's add the word "document" then (describe TTML documents as HTML documents or HTML representation in 1.6)
05:32:20 [silvia]
glenn: insert after HTML5 a "document fragment"
05:32:25 [silvia]
… then it's correct
05:32:34 [silvia]
cyril: what is in 1.4 ?
05:32:40 [silvia]
plh: yes, that's TTML2
05:32:57 [silvia]
glenn: we're only working on TTML2 right now
05:33:03 [silvia]
plh: can we change 1.4 then?
05:33:26 [silvia]
dsinger: just remove the word ""
05:33:42 [silvia]
… it's also used in 2.1
05:34:04 [dsinger]
05:34:30 [silvia]
glenn: 1.5 replace TTML1.0 with TTML1
05:35:21 [silvia]
cyril: is it on purpose that the metadata part was removed from section 2 ?
05:35:36 [silvia]
silvia: you don't do rendering of metadata
05:36:00 [silvia]
plh: let's add metadata back in
05:36:07 [silvia]
05:36:15 [silvia]
… it wasn't missed on purpose
05:36:59 [silvia]
dsinger: rename in 2.1 into something more nicely
05:37:25 [silvia]
cyril: can we make it explicit that WebVTT is mapped to HTML
05:37:39 [silvia]
dsinger: what is missing for both is "the use of these formats in a HTML context"
05:38:20 [silvia]
plh: will put it at the top before these paragraphs
05:38:33 [silvia]
cyril: should we include guidelines when to use either format?
05:38:54 [silvia]
… I'm looking at this from the viewpoint of a person outside the W3C
05:39:07 [silvia]
glenn: we don't do this for xhtml / html either
05:39:35 [silvia]
cyril: that one's obvious: one's xml and the other is not
05:39:44 [silvia]
[general giggles in the room] - thanks cyril!
05:39:46 [razybon]
razybon has joined #tt
05:40:32 [silvia]
dsinger: should point 3 rather say that we will develop a mapping
05:40:43 [silvia]
glenn: it's a bit academic - nobody has asked for this yet
05:41:03 [silvia]
dsinger: since webvtt is being rendered and the industry produced ttml, it's a real-world issue
05:41:16 [silvia]
plh: it will be part of building the html mappings
05:41:40 [silvia]
glenn: point 4 - do we need to list maintenance specs?
05:41:55 [silvia]
… then we need to also list all the old specs
05:42:46 [silvia]
plh: is there interest in doing point 4?
05:43:00 [silvia]
glenn: we can update a note anytime without asking the AC?
05:43:18 [silvia]
plh: I'll clarify that it is US only
05:43:20 [igarashi]
igarashi has joined #tt
05:43:22 [silvia]
… as a note
05:44:16 [silvia]
cyril: the last deliverable doesn't have a description of the deliverable
05:44:47 [silvia]
plh: it refers to the last item in the deliverables section - I need to clarify both
05:45:17 [silvia]
nigel: on point 5, what is meant by "and subset" ?
05:45:36 [silvia]
per: that attempted to say that the profile published by this group should be a superset of the input document
05:45:48 [silvia]
… objective would be to end up with a superset of what is subm,itted
05:45:55 [shoko]
shoko has joined #tt
05:46:25 [silvia]
nigel: that's dangerous since it implies that we have to adopt everything of the document
05:46:42 [silvia]
dsinger: let's remove it and leave it for the WG to decide later
05:46:52 [Noriya_]
Noriya_ has joined #TT
05:47:34 [silvia]
cyril: point 6, refers to "live production", but milestone says "live update note" in 2.2. milestones
05:47:40 [silvia]
plh: will fix the milestones
05:48:23 [silvia]
dsinger: should we mention a testsuite?
05:48:37 [silvia]
glenn: 1.7 and 2.3 mention it
05:48:51 [silvia]
plh: testsuites are part of process
05:49:40 [silvia]
silvia: do we want to publish the WebVTT to CEA608/708 mapping, too?
05:50:14 [silvia]
nigel: not necessary for TTML since SMPTE has such a spec
05:50:46 [silvia]
silvia: should it be a note or on REC trac?
05:50:50 [silvia]
plh: prefer a note
05:51:30 [silvia]
dsinger: let's add that we will publish a note at the end of point 2
05:51:49 [silvia]
dsinger: to check that the deliverables list is accurate
05:52:14 [silvia]
glenn: end date of charter is 11 months past the end of the last deliverable
05:52:41 [silvia]
nigel: there are quite some synchronized timescales that may create a lot of effort
05:53:26 [silvia]
… are they realistic?
05:54:03 [silvia]
.. peakiness of effort
05:54:34 [silvia]
silvia: suggestion to have nigel & plh liaise to change the dates
05:55:24 [silvia]
pal: the docs are all edited by different people
05:55:40 [silvia]
… all of these docs have drafts, so let's give ourselves some challenging milestones
05:56:03 [silvia]
dsinger: but the group as a whole has to look at the topics
05:57:03 [silvia]
silvia: we need a first column for FPWD on all of them
05:57:44 [silvia]
… in particular, WebVTT prefer FPWD in January
05:57:53 [silvia]
plh: what should the other dates be?
05:58:20 [silvia]
dsinger: reviews WebVTT milestones
05:58:42 [silvia]
silvia: I am mostly concerned about the testsuite
06:01:11 [silvia]
israelh: I don't know what we're missing in IE for WebVTT support
06:01:34 [silvia]
dsinger: I don't think we have all browsers interoperably support WebVTT by June next year
06:01:45 [silvia]
plh: the new process is not yet available to us
06:02:00 [silvia]
… once the new process comes out, it is what drives us
06:02:11 [silvia]
dsinger: once the new process has been adopted, we have to change the charter
06:02:16 [silvia]
plh: only need to change the milestones
06:02:36 [silvia]
dsinger: september for PR for vtt
06:03:25 [silvia]
pal: TTML2 and its profile - I'd look to Glenn for advice
06:03:52 [silvia]
… extremely aggressive
06:04:05 [silvia]
plh: safari implements webvtt?
06:04:11 [silvia]
dsinger: yes, it's in webkit
06:04:22 [silvia]
nigel: have we sorted out the timescales?
06:05:19 [silvia]
dsinger: let's have the FPWD before xmas
06:05:53 [silvia]
… for webvtt
06:05:54 [plh]
CR for WebVTT in September
06:05:57 [silvia]
… section 3
06:06:27 [silvia]
pal: do we have a normative reference to HTML? no
06:06:36 [silvia]
dsinger: are we missing dependencies
06:06:38 [silvia]
06:07:41 [israelh__]
israelh__ has joined #TT
06:07:41 [silvia]
nigel: can we get the TAG to review the scope of the deliverables?
06:08:00 [silvia]
plh: you can't force the TAG to do this
06:08:08 [silvia]
dsinger: as a chair you can ask them for input
06:08:12 [silvia]
nigel: I with to
06:08:19 [silvia]
06:09:05 [silvia]
Thierry: why is SVG a liaison and not a dependency?
06:09:17 [silvia]
dsinger: we don't need the SVG group to make any changes
06:09:39 [silvia]
cyril: we need to make specs based on the web animations spec
06:09:53 [silvia]
pal: since the spec is still draft, I'd call it a dependency
06:10:12 [silvia]
glenn: I discussed with the SVG chair
06:10:50 [silvia]
dsinger: we're adopting something that's specified in the future, so let's make it a dependency
06:11:05 [silvia]
plh: you will need a review from the groups listed under dependency
06:11:19 [silvia]
cyril: it would be good for SVG WG to review the animation section
06:11:35 [silvia]
glenn: we're adopting what is exactly specified in SVG 1.1
06:11:45 [silvia]
… so it's not a dependency, just a liaison
06:11:58 [silvia]
[group mumble: ok]
06:12:40 [silvia]
plh: there is an issue with TextTracks CG
06:12:56 [igarashi2]
igarashi2 has joined #tt
06:13:06 [silvia]
dsinger: they explore and we adopt
06:13:14 [silvia]
plh: where will the discussion happen?
06:13:47 [silvia]
dsinger: exploratory stuff in the CG, stuff on the REC track is in the WG
06:14:26 [silvia]
pal: the key aspect is there will be only one home for the spec, which is this group
06:14:57 [silvia]
… discussions related to the WebVTT group will take place on the TTWG list
06:15:07 [shoko]
shoko has left #tt
06:15:18 [silvia]
plh: will need to think this through
06:15:35 [silvia]
dsinger: extension specs can be created in CG
06:15:51 [silvia]
plh: I have more generally an issue to figure out how CG and WG work together
06:16:00 [silvia]
nigel: there is a risk that communications get split
06:16:24 [silvia]
… and decisions get made in one group that the other group doesn't agree with
06:16:44 [mark_vickers]
mark_vickers has joined #tt
06:16:46 [silvia]
pal: there is nothing that this group can do from stopping other people to do something that we don't like
06:17:20 [silvia]
plh: if I'm bringing a new feature to the spec, I don't want to be told to go speak with the CG
06:18:02 [silvia]
nigel: if a feature gets raised as part of developing the mapping between ttml and vtt, we don't want to have to push this to cg
06:18:20 [silvia]
dsinger: things we need to do to complete our deliverables obviously need to be done here
06:18:47 [silvia]
cyril: new extension proposals for vtt would be good to be passed by the CG as well
06:19:01 [Noriya_]
Noriya_ has joined #TT
06:19:22 [silvia]
dsinger: we absolutely need to manage our communication
06:19:29 [igarashi]
igarashi has joined #tt
06:19:56 [silvia]
nigel: is it a liaison with the TextTrack CG?
06:20:01 [silvia]
… it's much tighter than that
06:20:08 [pal]
06:20:11 [silvia]
… are they a dependency?
06:20:50 [silvia]
pal: I think that people have a concern with the VTT spec, they should come to this group
06:21:06 [glenn_]
glenn_ has joined #tt
06:21:09 [silvia]
nigel: we don't have a dependency though
06:21:40 [silvia]
dsinger: how about i18n
06:21:50 [pal]
06:21:53 [silvia]
nigel: that's a liaison with i18n
06:22:07 [silvia]
plh: what about asia's presence in TTWG
06:22:19 [silvia]
dsinger: would be good to add i18n
06:22:29 [silvia]
glenn: we have requests for ruby in TTML
06:23:15 [silvia]
pal: if we're missing a group, we can still liaise with them later, right?
06:23:22 [giuseppep_]
giuseppep_ has joined #tt
06:23:23 [igarashi]
igarashi has joined #tt
06:23:34 [silvia]
dsinger: let's add i18n to liaison
06:24:25 [nigel]
add dvb-tm
06:24:26 [silvia]
nigel: let's add the DVB-™ to external gropus
06:24:32 [plh]
06:24:38 [plh]
06:24:59 [silvia]
06:25:09 [silvia]
mark_vickers: should we add the FCC?
06:25:16 [silvia]
dsinger: no, we just execute what they write
06:25:30 [silvia]
plh: what about ITU?
06:25:44 [silvia]
.. is there a group that's relevant?
06:25:55 [israelh__]
06:26:03 [israelh__]
06:26:07 [silvia]
pal: yes, I'm still unclear what they do
06:26:16 [silvia]
… a group about TimedText
06:26:19 [silvia]
06:26:26 [pal]
06:26:40 [silvia]
06:26:52 [pal]
06:26:54 [silvia]
dsinger: let's send them a liaison
06:27:05 [silvia]
pal: I don't have a liaison in mind
06:27:12 [silvia]
… possibly in future
06:27:40 [glenn]
glenn has joined #tt
06:27:46 [silvia]
plh: an effective way for this is if they have a person sitting on both sides
06:27:57 [silvia]
… mpeg, SMPTE, EBU we are covered
06:28:12 [silvia]
… DECE we are covered
06:28:20 [silvia]
06:28:28 [silvia]
nigel: colleague of mine, so we're ok
06:28:37 [silvia]
Moving to section 4 … ok
06:28:40 [silvia]
section 5....
06:29:32 [silvia]
we'll update the web page once the charter is approved
06:29:38 [silvia]
plh: probably DEC/JAN
06:29:51 [silvia]
dsinger: should we add the wiki?
06:29:56 [silvia]
plh: too much detail
06:30:02 [silvia]
section 6...
06:30:42 [silvia]
Thierry: should we add the vtt mailing list?
06:30:50 [silvia]
dsinger: no, matters related to our deliverables go here
06:31:01 [silvia]
plh: conventions for mailing list should be mentioned
06:31:21 [silvia]
pal: how about the bug tracker?
06:31:59 [silvia]
glenn: some groups like HTML use issues when bugs become larger issues that need to be handled differently
06:32:12 [silvia]
pal: I prefer bugzilla for tracking bugs over the issue tracker
06:32:26 [silvia]
nigel: this is not part of the charter discussion
06:32:43 [silvia]
section 6, 7, 8 are boilerplate, so ok
06:32:48 [silvia]
cyril: what's the license?
06:32:54 [silvia]
plh: W3C document license
06:33:00 [silvia]
… I don't want to use anything else?
06:34:27 [silvia]
silvia: I think we need an open license on the vtt spec
06:35:06 [silvia]
plh: the open document license is currently experimental in HTML and not approved by TAG for other specs
06:35:27 [silvia]
dsinger: need to get it to the attention to AC & AB for CG to WG transition
06:36:11 [silvia]
nigel: what about new specs?
06:36:12 [dsinger]
action: dsinger to consider the problem of the license change from CG to WG, with the AC and AB and staff
06:36:12 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-240 - Consider the problem of the license change from cg to wg, with the ac and ab and staff [on David Singer - due 2013-11-22].
06:36:30 [silvia]
silvia: new specs created in WG will go under W3C document license
06:36:47 [silvia]
plh: a different license will delay the charter
06:37:22 [silvia1]
silvia1 has joined #tt
06:38:18 [silvia1]
dsinger: if there is discussion in the CG about it, that can be brought to the AC/AB
06:39:03 [silvia1]
action: plh to edit charter by next tuesday
06:39:03 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-241 - Edit charter by next tuesday [on Philippe Le Hégaret - due 2013-11-22].
06:39:24 [silvia1]
plh: ac review of charter is 4 weeks
06:39:44 [silvia1]
topic: Converging WebVTT and TTML
06:40:08 [silvia1]
nigel: input from Web & TV IG
06:40:20 [silvia1]
pal: was a group effort
06:40:30 [nigel]
06:40:38 [silvia1]
… was in response to reacting to two related efforts in W3C
06:40:59 [silvia1]
… Web & TV IG had a taskforce
06:41:10 [silvia1]
… recommendation is to combine the two under one roof
06:41:15 [silvia1]
… that's done, so that's great
06:41:37 [silvia1]
… maximize consistency between the two specs
06:41:53 [silvia1]
… three strategies to achieving this:
06:42:04 [silvia1]
… * define fully specified mappings
06:42:09 [silvia1]
… * pick one and run with it
06:42:23 [silvia1]
… * have multiple specs and deal with it
06:42:32 [silvia1]
… group didn't express a preference
06:42:47 [silvia1]
… also desire to reduce the number of TTML profiles
06:42:57 [silvia1]
… to simplify the life of developers and implementers
06:43:12 [silvia1]
… finally encourage the TTWG to engage with user and other groups with similar interest
06:43:27 [silvia1]
cyril: there are 3 profiles in TTML
06:43:40 [israelh]
israelh has joined #TT
06:43:40 [silvia1]
nigel: possibly more, depending on how you count them
06:43:57 [silvia1]
pal: w3c only defined 1 profile (simple delivery)
06:44:03 [silvia1]
… other groups defined more profiles
06:44:05 [Bert]
Bert has joined #tt
06:44:16 [dsinger]
06:44:18 [silvia1]
nigel: all the profiles are subsets
06:44:32 [silvia1]
cyril: then there are 2 profiles: the full profile and the SDP
06:44:44 [silvia1]
glenn: let's not discuss this here
06:44:55 [silvia1]
… we're introducing content profiles for the first time in TTML2
06:45:01 [silvia1]
pal: it was a reaction to the market place
06:45:14 [silvia1]
… to the wide range of profiles in use in practice
06:45:26 [silvia1]
… as an encouragement for the group to take this into consideration
06:45:27 [plh]
rrsagent, generate minutes
06:45:27 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate plh
06:45:43 [silvia1]
dsinger: was the Web & TV IG expecting a reaction to that?
06:45:58 [silvia1]
… they name the groups that they want us to interact with?
06:46:06 [silvia1]
nigel: can we assume that the charter has them covered?
06:46:27 [silvia1]
dsinger: can the Web & TV IG propose any others to add?
06:46:42 [silvia1]
mark_vickers: please send a request to IG
06:47:10 [silvia1]
action on mark_vickers to ask IG to provide input in external groups list in new charter
06:47:10 [trackbot]
Error finding 'on'. You can review and register nicknames at <>.
06:47:23 [silvia1]
action mark_vickers to ask IG to provide input in external groups list in new charter
06:47:23 [trackbot]
Error finding 'mark_vickers'. You can review and register nicknames at <>.
06:47:56 [israelh]
06:48:00 [mark_vickers]
mark_vickers has joined #tt
06:48:02 [silvia1]
action mark_vickers to ask IG to provide input in external groups list in new charter
06:48:02 [trackbot]
Error finding 'mark_vickers'. You can review and register nicknames at <>.
06:48:06 [israelh]
06:49:29 [silvia1]
action nigel to action mark_vickers to ask IG to provide input in external groups list in new charter
06:49:29 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-242 - Action mark_vickers to ask ig to provide input in external groups list in new charter [on Nigel Megitt - due 2013-11-22].
06:50:17 [silvia1]
dsinger: we've decided to do 3.2 from the IG document
06:50:20 [israelh]
06:50:37 [silvia1]
mark_vickers: I need a means to mechanically translate vtt and ttml into each other
06:50:44 [silvia1]
… there isn't a definition right now
06:51:08 [silvia1]
dsinger: there may be some things we can't translate, so we can't aim for completeness, but for consistency
06:53:16 [silvia1]
pal: there may be other options for content owners that have huge collections of TTML files that need to render their content
06:53:22 [igarashi]
igarashi has joined #tt
06:53:58 [silvia1]
dsinger: I want there to be a consistent conversion, and if features get dropped, then that needs to be clear
06:54:13 [silvia1]
… you can always deliver your TTML in other ways
06:54:55 [silvia1]
mark_vickers: we don't want people at the end of the pipeline that need captions to miss out
06:55:12 [dsinger]
06:55:33 [silvia1]
… I'm in the middle of that pipeline of formats that are both developed by the W3C
06:56:02 [silvia1]
… let's find a way to solve this as a practical thing
06:56:26 [silvia1]
israelh: what is the state machine to make this conversion
06:56:27 [silvia1]
06:57:03 [dsinger]
q+ to discuss other translations
06:57:24 [silvia1]
nigel: this problem space has been solved by the EBU to restrain how things get represented in EBU so that conversions can be done lossless
06:57:44 [silvia1]
… can we constrain the problem to make it solvable
06:57:45 [israelh]
06:59:30 [silvia1]
silvia: let's not discuss this problem here, because we have an explicit new charter deliverable for creating a mapping between webvtt and ttml
06:59:46 [silvia1]
… we are discussing an artificial problem that we don't even know we will have
07:00:16 [silvia1]
israelh: are we making it part of the deliverable to prescribe when the conversion is to be applied?
07:00:27 [silvia1]
dsinger: it will be what we make it
07:00:59 [silvia1]
nigel: if we start with mapping ttml to html+css then we have a common language that we both speak
07:01:16 [silvia1]
dsinger: we could have a face-to-face to explain to each other how to do different things
07:01:27 [silvia1]
mark_vickers: should there be a milestone in the charter for such a deliverable?
07:02:03 [silvia1]
dsinger: it's already a deliverable, but without a milestone
07:02:19 [silvia1]
nigel: happy with that
07:02:53 [silvia1]
silvia: is it a note or on the REC track?
07:03:08 [silvia1]
dsinger: a date would be good to have in there to make us feel bad about it
07:03:45 [silvia1]
… if we get to REC on TTML2 and VTT and don't have a mapping, then it's bad, because we can't make changes any more
07:04:03 [silvia1]
plh: editing the page
07:04:34 [silvia1]
… proposed to be a note in october 2014
07:04:41 [silvia1]
07:05:00 [silvia1]
… going back over the dates in the milestones table
07:05:23 [silvia1]
glenn: PR in December would be better
07:05:36 [silvia1]
.. and March on TTML2 for REC
07:07:44 [silvia1]
plh: ok, table updated
07:08:31 [silvia1]
silvia: what is "change proposal 5"?
07:08:41 [silvia1]
dsinger: thanks for the input of the IG
07:08:43 [nigel]
07:09:22 [silvia1]
glenn: this is the mapping of TTML2 to HTML5
07:09:38 [silvia1]
… it's on the charter
07:09:44 [silvia1]
… no need to discuss further
07:10:18 [silvia1]
nigel: plan of action
07:10:25 [silvia1]
… we have a new charter drafted
07:10:41 [silvia1]
dsinger: the group is too small - can we get more people to become active?
07:10:48 [silvia1]
nigel: not everyone is here
07:11:13 [silvia1]
nigel: break
07:11:32 [nigel]
rrsagent, generate minutes
07:11:32 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate nigel
07:16:48 [nigel]
dvb link:
07:21:11 [igarashi]
igarashi has joined #tt
07:34:13 [glenn]
glenn has joined #tt
07:59:36 [nigel]
rrsagent, pointer?
07:59:36 [RRSAgent]
08:03:07 [nigel]
Present+ Richard Ishida
08:03:40 [nigel]
Present- plh, silvia, giuseppep
08:05:13 [nigel]
08:05:14 [trackbot]
issue-295 -- Remove code point restrictions from IMSC -- open
08:05:14 [trackbot]
08:05:20 [nigel]
08:05:20 [trackbot]
issue-296 -- Remove xml:lang placement restrictions from IMSC -- open
08:05:20 [trackbot]
08:05:22 [r12a]
r12a has joined #tt
08:05:27 [nigel]
08:05:27 [trackbot]
issue-296 -- Remove xml:lang placement restrictions from IMSC -- open
08:05:27 [trackbot]
08:07:37 [nigel]
proposal: remove restriction of a single xml:lang per document
08:08:05 [nigel]
r12a: lang can be used for spellchecking, styling and other features.
08:08:51 [nigel]
no objections: proposal accepted.
08:09:26 [nigel]
issue-296: proposal accepted, pal to make edit
08:09:26 [trackbot]
Notes added to issue-296 Remove xml:lang placement restrictions from IMSC.
08:09:35 [nigel]
08:09:35 [trackbot]
issue-295 -- Remove code point restrictions from IMSC -- open
08:09:35 [trackbot]
08:10:11 [nigel]
pal: has concern with reasoning in the issue description but the text in IMSC does have issues that need to be fixed.
08:10:44 [nigel]
... Following discussion with Richard Ishida, Glenn and others, there's a revised proposal.
08:11:06 [ddavis]
ddavis has joined #tt
08:11:23 [nigel]
pal: 3 separate concerns expressed.
08:12:03 [nigel]
First is last para, to remove inference that limited character sets in client implementations are acceptable and recommended.
08:12:31 [nigel]
pal: IMSC doesn't intend this. Annex A are recommendations to the author as to which characters should be used for specific characters.
08:12:50 [nigel]
... Not a restriction on implementations.
08:13:27 [Noriya_]
Noriya_ has joined #TT
08:13:37 [nigel]
r12a: It's a set of recommendations for the minimum set of characters that authors would be expected to use rather than should use. What's meant is that authors should have access to fonts with these character sets as a minimum.
08:14:27 [nigel]
pal: The end result is that if I'm an author and I specify language=fr this is guidance for which characters should be available.
08:14:38 [nigel]
glenn: IMSC is designed to be a content profile only.
08:14:56 [nigel]
dsinger: refers to example from 3GPP work.
08:15:49 [nigel]
glenn: it isn't a limitation, and what it may contain is determined by Unicode and by the authoring tools. e.g. English: we have ASCII, also mathematical bold version of a-z that could be used. Is someone going to type those on a composition system?
08:16:01 [nigel]
dsinger: is there a document anywhere that maps language tags to character sets?
08:16:08 [nigel]
r12a: yes, it's called CLDR.
08:16:19 [nigel]
pal: first step is to agree to make a recommendation like that and then find the source.
08:16:28 [nigel]
glenn: doesn't agree that such a recommendation is a good idea.
08:16:58 [nigel]
r12a: this isn't really about code points and characters, but about a minimum set of characters you should have support for in a font.
08:17:18 [nigel]
glenn: but this doesn't specify processor minimal behaviour
08:17:35 [nigel]
glenn: nobody needs to be told not to write English with Chinese characters
08:17:58 [nigel]
dsinger: they do - the situation is unclear re e.g. mathematical symbols.
08:18:05 [nigel]
glenn: need to clarify between font support and terminal support
08:18:16 [nigel]
dsinger: need to know that a document will work on a specific terminal.
08:18:39 [nigel]
pal: that document restriction is equivalent to a processor recommendation.
08:18:53 [nigel]
glenn: so this is a change in what needs to be accomplished - it needs to be a processor constraint?
08:19:13 [nigel]
pal: no, it's a document constraint that achieves the same goal.
08:19:40 [nigel]
glenn: to clarify, if I'm an author and use lang="en" I should only stay within the Unicode code points that would normally be rendered in English.
08:20:12 [nigel]
r12a: that's not what I understood. I thought: if I'm a user for English then I would expect minimal support for this set of characters but could use any other characters, accepting they may not appear correctly.
08:20:30 [nigel]
pal: r12a states the processor requirement, glenn the content requirement.
08:20:49 [nigel]
r12a: so there's no limitation on what the author can use, just a recommendation for a minimal set that must be supported.
08:21:08 [nigel]
dsinger: no it's the minimal set that can be expected to be supported, so things outside that set might not render properly.
08:21:34 [nigel]
glenn: so does the CLDR define characters in those terms?
08:21:48 [nigel]
pal: are we comfortable with defining it as a document constraint?
08:22:20 [nigel]
nigel: is it per element?
08:22:48 [nigel]
pal: it's the computed value for xml:lang for every piece of content.
08:22:58 [nigel]
glenn: I don't mind that, but don't want to define in TTML
08:23:08 [nigel]
pal: is there a fundamental reason not to have recommendations at all?
08:23:57 [nigel]
glenn: it's an unnecessary constraint because practically people who author content in language have to use a keyboard with an OS-determined code point set output
08:24:23 [nigel]
pal: what about crazy symbols e.g. an aeroplane symbol? People don't type that.
08:24:35 [nigel]
r12a: CLDR defines the code point set per language.
08:24:55 [ddavis]
ddavis has joined #tt
08:25:22 [nigel]
nigel: we need a proposal for some text
08:25:44 [nigel]
pal: does dsinger want to draft some text that says what he said?
08:26:29 [dsinger]
In order to be confident that the text will be correctly presented, text that is written in a given language should use the code-points as defined in CLDR as required for that language.
08:27:17 [nigel]
group works on revised text...
08:27:49 [nigel]
glenn: do you have any guidance about how this problem has been handled before?
08:27:54 [nigel]
r12a: not that I remember.
08:28:03 [nigel]
glenn: is that because nobody thinks its a problem?
08:28:48 [nigel]
r12a: if I understand you're working backwards from a processor that assumes limited per-language capability, but mostly we're not dealing with that situation but one where you can define the font used, so it doesn't apply.
08:29:28 [nigel]
dsinger: we're now in a market where web capability is trickling into fixed capability devices like televisions.
08:29:45 [nigel]
r12a: do you specify that e.g. televisions must support some characters?
08:30:18 [nigel]
glenn: we have content profiles and processor profiles with different constraint logic. We have a formal mechanism to define those profiles and IMSC is a set of content profiles.
08:30:31 [nigel]
... He's focussing on what must be/may be/must not be in content.
08:30:48 [nigel]
r12a: can you not specify a less restrictive processor?
08:31:08 [nigel]
glenn: we were discussing earlier the mapping between content and processor profile.
08:31:21 [nigel]
... We will define some default mapping.
08:33:34 [nigel]
glenn: originally we only defined processor profiles against features.
08:33:51 [nigel]
nigel: can we not require that for restricted processors the author must have access to a font with the restricted set of code points?
08:33:59 [nigel]
pal: that wouldn't permit profile-based interoperability
08:34:29 [nigel]
action: pal to edit dsinger's proposed wording which captures the intent.
08:34:29 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-243 - Edit dsinger's proposed wording which captures the intent. [on Pierre-Anthony Lemieux - due 2013-11-22].
08:35:13 [mark_vickers]
mark_vickers has joined #tt
08:35:16 [nigel]
nigel: is there anything we must avoid?
08:35:53 [nigel]
r12a: my concern is a step removed - that we have constrained processors. If that's the reality I can't find an objection to the proposed wording.
08:36:27 [nigel]
pal: * Point 2: what set of characters can we use?
08:36:40 [pal]
08:37:33 [nigel]
pal: one issue is that there are no SE Asian language sets so that's a deficiency that must be resolved. I've heard CLDR so there's a Unicode effort to do this.
08:37:50 [nigel]
... Annex A is based on an analysis of subtitles not a reference to e.g. CLDR.
08:38:06 [nigel]
... r12a pointed out that using reference automatically includes future additions.
08:38:54 [nigel]
... There are some characters here that are included in this list that aren't in CLDR generally. So my proposal is to go through CLDR and compare this set with what's in CLDR and generate the delta. Then build the table as CLDR + additions e.g. box drawings.
08:39:30 [nigel]
... Then I plan to present the outcome to this group. Until I go through that exercise I'm not sure what the outcome will be.
08:40:34 [nigel]
glenn: you need to be either exhaustive, i.e. per country, to determine the delta, or you publish something incomplete. There are no tables for many languages (lists some fun ones) so you won't have time to complete this within the charter period.
08:40:52 [nigel]
... So practically we'll have to publish incomplete sets of tables based on the time available.
08:40:56 [nigel]
pal: that's my expectation.
08:41:36 [nigel]
glenn: is there a risk to this? What value is there in attempting to do this huge job? What's the author's risk if they use something not in the set. At worst a box on the screen. If downloadable fonts are used maybe not.
08:42:12 [nigel]
pal: there's the risk that some languages won't be included. So r12a proposed separating this section into a note that can be amended whenever new languages are analysed.
08:42:46 [nigel]
glenn: I propose only including the deltas not all the ligature entries. I'd also do it as a wiki-style registry that allows easy editing.
08:43:02 [nigel]
pal: It has to be more formal and be reviewed by the group.
08:43:41 [nigel]
nigel: that restricts the amendments to the charter period.
08:44:03 [nigel]
glenn: could also recommend to Unicode that they publish subtitle sets.
08:44:20 [nigel]
glenn: objects to anything that involves us publishing character tables.
08:44:35 [nigel]
pal: I'm not objecting to a note, but a wiki, because wikis have no scrutiny.
08:44:45 [nigel]
pal: This group should help with interoperability here.
08:45:21 [nigel]
glenn: at this level I don't think its appropriate for this group to do it. I don't mind referencing work by UTC in this area. I've made the same objections in CSS when they tried to define list counters in Ethiopian.
08:45:38 [nigel]
... the group doesn't have the resources to do this sort of thing.
08:45:50 [nigel]
r12a: the i18n group published that as a note.
08:46:02 [nigel]
glenn: I wouldn't mind throwing it over to i18n.
08:46:12 [nigel]
pal: it's in SDP-US
08:46:24 [nigel]
glenn: I wouldn't mind it as a processor profile.
08:46:31 [nigel]
pal: but it's the same.
08:46:49 [nigel]
glenn: if you could specify for just US I might not object.
08:46:52 [nigel]
pal: what's the risk?
08:47:25 [nigel]
glenn: this group doesn't have the expertise. I don't see us as a repository for all regions coming to us. It'll never be complete and always be wrong.
08:47:38 [nigel]
glenn: this position is based on past experience.
08:48:11 [nigel]
nigel: is there an acceptable proposal?
08:48:48 [nigel]
glenn: would accept it if i18n took it on and we could reference. Or if we could relate to CLDR. Or having a small table that's specifically for 608 and 708 reasons, and if EBU or other countries want to provide specific regional requirements
08:48:56 [nigel]
... beyond the normal set then I might be able to accept that.
08:49:01 [nigel]
pal: but this is that.
08:49:12 [nigel]
glenn: the difference is who comes to whom.
08:49:27 [nigel]
pal: this is based on actual subtitle practice, so why wouldn't we accept it?
08:50:16 [nigel]
glenn: I have a lot of experience watching how Unicode attempted to encode countries' languages without their participation and it caused lots of problems. Eventually the countries went to Unicode.
08:50:33 [nigel]
pal: I would accept removing this section.
08:51:12 [nigel]
glenn: can we give it to the i18n group to document - it's not specific to captioning.
08:51:23 [nigel]
pal: this is an important scope issue - it's specifically for subtitling and captioning.
08:51:41 [nigel]
r12a: the i18n group wouldn't have the expertise needed to define the additional characters needed for capturing.
08:51:52 [nigel]
glenn: if it's just the deltas I'd like to see it on a case by case basis.
08:52:00 [nigel]
... It's hard to argue in the general sense.
08:52:10 [nigel]
pal: my proposal is to generate the delta and we can have a look at it then.
08:52:30 [nigel]
glenn: I'll withdraw my pre-emptive objection and allow this work to proceed.
08:54:46 [nigel]
action: pal to proceed with work to investigate deltas. If time doesn't allow the fallback is to remove annex A.
08:54:47 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-244 - Proceed with work to investigate deltas. if time doesn't allow the fallback is to remove annex a. [on Pierre-Anthony Lemieux - due 2013-11-22].
08:55:19 [nigel]
pal: propose to remove annex B
08:56:32 [nigel]
issue-295: see action-244 and action-243.
08:56:32 [trackbot]
Notes added to issue-295 Remove code point restrictions from IMSC.
08:56:50 [r12a]
08:57:18 [nigel]
r12a: this is a reference to the correct way to identify language subtags
08:57:55 [nigel]
r12a: note spelling error in the word Finnish in Annex A.
08:58:20 [nigel]
pal: the input document is from an industry standard.
08:58:25 [nigel]
... (not written by me!)
08:59:44 [nigel]
08:59:44 [trackbot]
issue-188 -- Bounding TTML (was: SDP-US) rendering complexity -- open
08:59:44 [trackbot]
09:00:11 [nigel]
pal: feedback on the Hypothetical Render Model is needed at this point.
09:00:44 [nigel]
pal: this issue was a proposal to limit complexity in SDP-US. There is now that proposal, in IMSC, so I'm happy to close.
09:01:35 [nigel]
pal: the parameters in CFF-TT were deliberately chosen to be sufficient for SDP-US so this is covered in IMSC.
09:02:28 [nigel]
pal: this is specifically related to SDP-US, which has been published. How does the group wish to deal with it?
09:03:05 [nigel]
glenn: we have some potential maintenance to do. There's no reason not to implement errata. Adding this would be a step further than that. I wouldn't want to cut and paste IMSC HRM into SDP-US.
09:03:20 [nigel]
... We could always add a note and an informative reference, as a clarifying errata.
09:03:41 [nigel]
glenn: does either SDP-US or IMSC support the set animation element?
09:03:42 [nigel]
pal: yes
09:03:59 [nigel]
glenn: but there are no different deltas within an intermediate synchronic document?
09:04:09 [nigel]
pal: yes, it's event based.
09:04:29 [nigel]
glenn: ISDs are now defined not to contain any set transitions. With animate that will change.
09:04:55 [nigel]
pal: I expect IMSC not to support animate so the functionality would have to be expressed in terms of a sequence of sets.
09:04:59 [nigel]
09:05:21 [nigel]
glenn: we specified in TTML 1 that a processor may interpolate between ISDs.
09:06:05 [nigel]
ack nigel
09:06:11 [nigel]
q- silvia
09:06:13 [nigel]
q- dsinger
09:07:14 [nigel]
nigel: If we add complexity constraints do we need to ensure that FCC required minimum performance, i.e. derived from CEA-608 and 708, are met?
09:07:43 [nigel]
pal: That exercise was done by DECE. They are satisfied that the performance parameters in the HRM today meet those requirements.
09:08:20 [nigel]
pal: I propose re this issue to defer it to the maintenance of SDP-US and revisit it then.
09:08:29 [nigel]
no objections
09:10:28 [nigel]
issue-188 updated
09:10:46 [nigel]
09:10:46 [trackbot]
issue-201 -- How to specify aspect ratio to understand positioning that may apply for display or video. -- open
09:10:46 [trackbot]
09:11:13 [nigel]
pal: discussion on Monday re definition of pixels now dependent on glenn to give further consideration.
09:12:00 [nigel]
... Mapping of the root container to video is application dependent, in general, so should not be defined in TTML, but perhaps adding an aspect ratio metadata element to TTML indicating what was the aspect ratio of the video at authoring.
09:12:06 [nigel]
nigel: that's done in EBU-TT-D too.
09:12:42 [nigel]
glenn: we already have this in SMPTE-TT-11 with the m708:aspectRatio, whose intent is to communicate the aspect ratio of the related video at authoring.
09:13:05 [nigel]
... my thinking was to introduce a ttp: or ttm: element or attribute.
09:13:17 [nigel]
nigel: I think it's ttm:
09:13:26 [nigel]
glenn: we use ttp: for metadata that affects processing.
09:13:31 [nigel]
nigel: it's not for processing.
09:13:57 [nigel]
pal: IMSC might use it for processing. Is that bad?
09:13:58 [nigel]
nigel: it's bad.
09:14:48 [nigel]
pal: this is a response trying to address the long discussion we had previously. IMSC could just create an extension attribute and define it.
09:15:11 [nigel]
... Another option is to define in TTML 2 an attribute that's aspectRatio, and allow profiles to specify processor behaviour.
09:15:44 [nigel]
glenn: We could put something into the spec early to satisfy the authorial intention requirement, using ttm: and think more on this and maybe come up with a more formal way of affecting processor,
09:16:20 [nigel]
... e.g. drawing from SVG viewbox semantics and mapping the viewport to the device coordinate space. As we proceed with that we might have some ttp: parameters that affect processor behaviour.
09:16:24 [nigel]
... I'm just thinking about this.
09:16:58 [nigel]
pal: we need to take into account that as soon as we define it people will use it.
09:17:45 [nigel]
glenn: I want to make sure the first thing we define carries little processing impact.
09:18:04 [nigel]
nigel: as ebu-tt-d already has it this would be a good thing to add, for profile convergence.
09:18:30 [nigel]
glenn: if we put something in ttm: space early it gives us the ability to support the current definition in SMPTE-TT as well as EBU-TT to satisfy the immediate need.
09:20:19 [nigel]
nigel: all accept this working proposal, subject to potential revision?
09:20:27 [nigel]
nobody objects
09:20:55 [nigel]
glenn: if we do that we'll have to put some large warning labels on it saying 'not for processing. We expect to introduce processing-related parameters soon'
09:22:07 [nigel]
pal: IMSC does specify processing behaviour based on an aspect ratio parameter.
09:23:29 [nigel]
issue-201: Glenn to investigate SVG viewbox etc and see if something can be brought in from that space.
09:23:29 [trackbot]
Notes added to issue-201 How to specify aspect ratio to understand positioning that may apply for display or video..
09:25:08 [nigel]
nigel: there are also uses for bar support and other aspect ratio parameters.
09:25:35 [ddavis]
ddavis has joined #tt
09:27:12 [nigel]
topic: wrap-up
09:27:20 [nigel]
nigel describes what we did, from the agenda.
09:28:13 [mark_vickers]
mark_vickers has joined #tt
09:28:34 [nigel]
mark_vickers: We received a Consensus Input from the Web and TV IG.
09:28:46 [nigel]
nigel: we also received a liaison from EBU which we didn't cover on the agenda.
09:29:14 [nigel]
nigel: next meeting Thursday
09:29:48 [nigel]
glenn: regrets until Dec 5th.
09:30:09 [nigel]
nigel: thanks everyone.
09:30:12 [nigel]
meeting closes.
09:30:16 [nigel]
rrsagent, generate minutes
09:30:16 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate nigel
09:31:00 [pal]
09:35:59 [glenn]
glenn has joined #tt
09:53:41 [olivier]
olivier has left #tt
09:55:33 [dsinger]
dsinger has joined #tt
10:20:09 [dsinger]
dsinger has joined #tt
10:46:37 [glenn]
glenn has joined #tt
11:46:55 [glenn]
glenn has joined #tt
11:48:33 [glenn_]
glenn_ has joined #tt
13:33:05 [glenn]
glenn has joined #tt
13:54:58 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #tt
15:19:06 [Bert]
Bert has left #tt