13:58:04 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #tt
13:58:04 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2014/06/19-tt-irc
13:58:06 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs public
13:58:06 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #tt
13:58:08 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be TTML
13:58:08 <Zakim> ok, trackbot; I see SYMM_TTWG()10:00AM scheduled to start in 2 minutes
13:58:09 <trackbot> Meeting: Timed Text Working Group Teleconference
13:58:09 <trackbot> Date: 19 June 2014
13:58:58 <pal> pal has joined #tt
14:00:09 <tmichel> tmichel has joined #tt
14:00:10 <Zakim> SYMM_TTWG()10:00AM has now started
14:00:17 <Zakim> +pal
14:00:40 <Zakim> +nigel
14:01:00 <nigel> zakim, who is making noise?
14:01:10 <Zakim> nigel, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: pal (10%), nigel (54%)
14:01:23 <nigel> chair: nigel
14:01:39 <nigel> regrets: mike_dolan, frans_de_jong
14:02:37 <Zakim> +glenn
14:03:18 <Zakim> +??P13
14:03:29 <tmichel> zakim, ??P13 is me
14:03:29 <Zakim> +tmichel; got it
14:04:55 <nigel> scribeNick: nigel
14:05:02 <plh> plh has joined #tt
14:05:12 <Zakim> +Plh
14:05:19 <tmichel> zakim, who is here
14:05:19 <Zakim> tmichel, you need to end that query with '?'
14:05:29 <tmichel> zakim, who is here?
14:05:29 <Zakim> On the phone I see pal, nigel, glenn, tmichel, Plh
14:05:31 <Zakim> On IRC I see plh, tmichel, pal, Zakim, RRSAgent, nigel, glenn_, trackbot
14:06:11 <nigel> Present: pal, nigel, glenn, tmichel, plh
14:06:57 <nigel> Topic: Actions
14:07:11 <nigel> action-297?
14:07:11 <trackbot> action-297 -- Glenn Adams to Soften language about 'willful violation' regarding treatment of duration zero -- due 2014-06-12 -- PENDINGREVIEW
14:07:11 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/tracker/actions/297
14:07:59 <jdsmith> jdsmith has joined #tt
14:07:59 <Zakim> +[Microsoft]
14:08:18 <nigel> Present+ jdsmith
14:08:49 <pal> q+
14:08:53 <nigel> ack pal
14:10:30 <nigel> close action-297
14:10:30 <trackbot> Closed action-297.
14:10:40 <nigel> action-300?
14:10:40 <trackbot> action-300 -- Glenn Adams to Add note to issue 263 explaining how ttml2 additions for @{extends,restricts} (partially) addresses this issue -- due 2014-06-19 -- PENDINGREVIEW
14:10:40 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/tracker/actions/300
14:11:05 <nigel> issue-263?
14:11:06 <trackbot> issue-263 -- profile feature set may not match intended feature constraints -- pending review
14:11:06 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/tracker/issues/263
14:11:50 <nigel> glenn: I added the note.
14:12:02 <nigel> close action-300
14:12:02 <trackbot> Closed action-300.
14:13:40 <nigel> Topic: Issues
14:14:10 <nigel> issue-263?
14:14:10 <trackbot> issue-263 -- profile feature set may not match intended feature constraints -- pending review
14:14:10 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/tracker/issues/263
14:14:18 <nigel> q+ glenn
14:14:21 <nigel> ack glenn
14:15:10 <nigel> glenn: Implemented since May 21. Initially raised by Mike Dolan so we may need him to review it.
14:15:41 <nigel> ... There's a question: should we update SDP-US. We don't normally update notes, so this is a process issue.
14:15:54 <nigel> ... What I implemented potentially resolves the issue raised.
14:16:05 <nigel> q+
14:17:10 <nigel> glenn: We should probably check with Mike and call for consensus to the group requesting input and close if no objections otherwise we'll see if someone wants to file an issue to update SDP-US in some way.
14:17:13 <nigel> ack
14:17:16 <nigel> ack nigel
14:18:29 <nigel> nigel: I understood that though this is a problem surfaced by SDP-US it's really something for use in future specifications.
14:18:40 <pal> q+
14:18:43 <nigel> ... I'm happy to leave this pending review and seek input as proposed.
14:18:46 <nigel> ack pal
14:19:54 <nigel> pal: Glenn, if you could crystallise your thoughts on how this would work that would be helpful.
14:20:12 <nigel> glenn: There's no formal way in TTML1 so the only option is to write it into prose.
14:20:51 <nigel> ... However if you write a profile that uses an existing feature and then says in the prose that it's a restriction or extension without defining a new feature that would be problematic.
14:21:34 <nigel> ... Right now the way people have been writing profiles has not included defining new features or extensions. For example CFF-TT and EBU-TT they just say 'use this feature' but we're restricting it semantically or syntactically.
14:21:41 <nigel> pal: That's true in SDP-US too?
14:22:24 <nigel> glenn: That's right. This leads to an ambiguity because the formal definition of the features is not restricted.
14:22:45 <nigel> pal: In the context of TTML1 how important/tolerable is this?
14:23:38 <nigel> glenn: The consequence, for TTML1 processor profiles, is that the profile asks for more support than is required by the content. Color is an example. The profile definition in SDP-US
14:23:56 <nigel> ... requires all colors to be supported by the processor but the prose only requires support for a limited subset.
14:24:44 <nigel> ... In TTML2 we're handling this differently but that's the discrepancy in TTML1.
14:25:19 <nigel> issue-295?
14:25:19 <trackbot> issue-295 -- Remove code point restrictions from IMSC -- pending review
14:25:19 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/tracker/issues/295
14:25:29 <pal> q+
14:26:02 <nigel> ack pal
14:26:23 <nigel> pal: The two actions have been closed so if there's no new information this can be closed.
14:26:37 <nigel> close issue-295
14:26:37 <trackbot> Closed issue-295.
14:26:43 <nigel> issue-296?
14:26:43 <trackbot> issue-296 -- Remove xml:lang placement restrictions from IMSC -- pending review
14:26:43 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/tracker/issues/296
14:27:06 <nigel> nigel: notes that Pal has posted some edits.
14:27:32 <nigel> nigel: This is related to issue-237 which is closed.
14:27:54 <nigel> pal: The proposal was accepted and implemented in November.
14:28:28 <nigel> close issue-296
14:28:28 <trackbot> Closed issue-296.
14:28:55 <nigel> issue-308?
14:28:55 <trackbot> issue-308 -- It is unclear how a document is associated with a related video object -- pending review
14:28:55 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/tracker/issues/308
14:29:04 <pal> q+
14:29:06 <nigel> ack pal
14:29:48 <nigel> q+
14:29:51 <nigel> ack nigel
14:31:01 <nigel> nigel: I still have an outstanding issue not resolved in §4.4 because the intention to display and remove ISDs on specific video frames remains.
14:31:57 <pal> q+
14:32:38 <nigel> nigel: I think I'm happy with the time expressions part though.
14:32:41 <nigel> ack pal
14:32:52 <nigel> pal: There's also issue-317
14:33:00 <nigel> ... Which is about frame alignment.
14:34:08 <nigel> pal: Issue-308 doesn't make the link between Related Video Object and Related Media Object and that's been fixed. Also 308 implies that IMSC documents have to be authored for a particular frame rate,
14:34:16 <nigel> ... which is not true unless frame rate is used.
14:34:17 <nigel> q+
14:34:20 <nigel> ack nigel
14:34:57 <nigel> nigel: agrees that Issue-317 is separate and that this edit fixes Issue-308.
14:35:09 <nigel> close issue-308
14:35:09 <trackbot> Closed issue-308.
14:35:23 <nigel> issue-309?
14:35:23 <trackbot> issue-309 -- Image profile needs to permit text equivalent -- pending review
14:35:23 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/tracker/issues/309
14:36:10 <nigel> nigel: There's ongoing discussion of this issue on the email reflector, including participants not present here.
14:36:23 <pal> q+
14:36:28 <nigel> ack pal
14:37:03 <nigel> pal: How will we resolve this?
14:37:17 <nigel> nigel: John Birch is working on an edit proposal.
14:37:29 <nigel> pal: I believe IMSC already deals with text equivalence.
14:37:30 <nigel> q+
14:37:37 <nigel> ack nigel
14:38:59 <nigel> nigel: I don't think IMSC deals with this strongly enough at present.
14:39:25 <nigel> ... I believe we must allow alternative text representations alongside images, for content providers to optionally use.
14:40:14 <nigel> pal: Must is a strong statement - we need to get understand why this level of requirement applies here given that content providers can generate whole alternate documents.
14:41:17 <nigel> pal: This depends on the application. The technology supports all the applications.
14:41:18 <nigel> q+
14:41:27 <nigel> ack nigel
14:42:30 <nigel> nigel: The specification only defines the contents of a single document, and if that document has image representations there's no accessible equivalent.
14:42:40 <nigel> pal: IMSC satisfies that.
14:42:58 <nigel> nigel: I disagree that IMSC satisfies that.
14:43:31 <nigel> pal: If you multiplex the documents that becomes a single document. All applications I know of support multiple tracks already.
14:43:32 <nigel> q+
14:43:37 <nigel> ack nigel
14:44:19 <nigel> nigel: We aren't defining the application just the document format. IMSC does not support multiplexing at the moment.
14:44:36 <nigel> pal: All applications I know of for IMSC already support this and other things too.
14:45:15 <nigel> pal: I'm not opposed to informative metadata as John has pointed out, that can be useful for debugging. That's probably a good idea. I see potential harm but no requirement in specifying a less flexible and rich profile than text profile.
14:45:17 <nigel> q+
14:45:20 <nigel> ack nigel
14:46:57 <nigel> nigel: I agree and propose that documents should be able to contain both text profile and image profile and a selectivity mechanism for the processor to choose which representation to use.
14:47:27 <nigel> nigel: It's broken now because it doesn't satisfy the W3C's own guidelines for accessibility.
14:47:59 <nigel> glenn: Historically it has never required a separate document to satisfy the requirement for alternate text representation.
14:48:45 <nigel> pal: I believe the guidelines are intended to be more general but I did not see in the recommendations anything that points to a single document even if that's how it's been implemented so far.
14:49:44 <nigel> glenn: Most 'lay people' would say that these requirements do apply. It may be worth getting a sense from someone e.g. involved in WCAG.
14:50:07 <nigel> ... Technically you could just put metadata in, which would be a non-standard solution and probably not adequate, but it would be useful to get input to ward off future objections.
14:50:26 <nigel> pal: Why would metadata not satisfy the recommendations?
14:50:46 <plh> q+
14:50:49 <nigel> glenn: it might, but I can't answer this.
14:50:55 <nigel> ack plh
14:51:18 <nigel> plh: We're talking about backgroundImage. Why would you require alternate content?
14:51:31 <nigel> glenn: This is using backgroundImage for the content.
14:51:43 <nigel> nigel: This originated in SMPTE-TT.
14:52:26 <nigel> plh: The use of backgroundImage in CSS wasn't intended for this. In CSS it wasn't supposed to carry content that needs to be made accessible.
14:52:42 <nigel> ... If it's really part of the content then we should address the naming and we do need a text alternative for that.
14:53:22 <nigel> pal: There's at least one digital cinema application when a lot of the time subtitles are delivered as image. They can also be delivered as text. These are displayed on screen for hard of hearing.
14:53:53 <nigel> ... In parallel there's another document for captions that uses the same format with a different profile, and it's always text, and is used for captioning devices.
14:54:23 <nigel> ... This is done because you typically want more control over the display of the text for captioning devices than you could by a simple alt tag on an image. This is how cinema meets accessibility requirements.
14:55:02 <nigel> pal: Sometimes there are two subtitle tracks, one for language translation, another for description of sounds.
14:55:25 <nigel> plh: I think glenn is right - we should ask. I'm wondering if it's even meaningful.
14:55:26 <nigel> q+
14:55:50 <nigel> plh: Here those persons can hear what is there, so if they can hear the video then will they still need to have the subtitling.
14:56:11 <nigel> ... It's not just about text alternatives, but a lot more, so it would need a dedicated track.
14:56:18 <nigel> pal: This is the only way to provide a good experience.
14:56:41 <nigel> plh: In that case we should put some guidelines in that section that says by the way we recommend that this is not used for non-sighted applications.
14:57:03 <nigel> pal: I really want to understand the use cases and am happy to follow up with W3C folk.
14:57:28 <nigel> ACTION plh Contact W3C Accessibility expert re Issue-309
14:57:28 <trackbot> Created ACTION-301 - Contact w3c accessibility expert re issue-309 [on Philippe Le Hégaret - due 2014-06-26].
14:57:41 <nigel> pal: I'm happy to help, as this is a different use case than HTML.
14:58:08 <nigel> ack nigel
14:58:46 <glenn_> q+
14:58:56 <nigel> ack glenn
14:59:30 <nigel> nigel: There are use cases that aren't just for non-seeing and non-hearing folk, e.g. touch-based. I've also mentioned the issue of the attribute name showBackground in the email thread.
15:00:04 <nigel> glenn: It's possible that we can meet these genuine requirements with separate documents. We should also consider the use cases of search and information processing.
15:01:25 <nigel> nigel: adjourn for 2 minutes until 16:03 please
15:05:04 <tmichel> zakim, who is here ?
15:05:04 <Zakim> On the phone I see pal, nigel, glenn, tmichel, Plh, [Microsoft]
15:05:06 <Zakim> On IRC I see jdsmith, plh, tmichel, pal, Zakim, RRSAgent, nigel, glenn_, trackbot
15:06:48 <nigel> issue-312?
15:06:48 <trackbot> issue-312 -- forcedDisplay attribute is metadata so should be in ttm not tts namespace -- pending review
15:06:48 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/tracker/issues/312
15:07:36 <nigel> q+
15:07:40 <nigel> ack nigel
15:07:48 <glenn> q+
15:08:37 <nigel> ack glenn
15:09:04 <nigel> nigel: For me the edit in §4.5.3 has not addressed the issue since all content is expected to be displayed anyway.
15:09:21 <nigel> glenn: We should change the name of this issue as it's not the path we want to go down.
15:09:23 <nigel> q+
15:09:44 <nigel> pal: It isn't a metadata element, and is not in the ttml namespace, but is in the imsc namespace as discussed before.
15:09:52 <nigel> ack nigel
15:09:55 <nigel> nigel: I will change it.
15:10:44 <nigel> pal: Please propose an alternative and see the example
15:10:50 <nigel> nigel: I see no example in 4.5.3
15:11:05 <nigel> glenn: Rather than feature designator it should be an extension designator.
15:11:18 <nigel> pal: §4.5.3 references an example.
15:11:52 <nigel> nigel: That example describes the use case but not the semantics of the attribute.
15:12:52 <glenn> q+
15:13:40 <nigel> nigel: This is very different from the current system model in which a document is being processed only if the content is to be shown.
15:14:54 <nigel> glenn: The second para in §4.5.3 that describes forcedDisplay talks about SHOULD be displayed regardless of etc. This disregards the semantics of the visibility property and timing and the display property, and the mapping to a temporally active region.
15:15:23 <nigel> ... Additionally the region itself could be made invisible. This doesn't factor in all of those aspects of display into the equation so I'm concerned about how this reaches down inside the content
15:15:38 <nigel> ... and defines 'display regardless of everything else'.
15:15:58 <nigel> pal: It's more 'don't display the other stuff' unless this setting is true.
15:16:29 <nigel> glenn: I'm more of the opinion that this maybe should be metadata, as it's a higher level protocol that's outside of the scope of the current semantics of TTML. I'd be a lot more comfortable
15:17:02 <nigel> ... if this were defined in a metadata namespace. The language needs to be characterised as a higher level protocol, and it would be useful to have examples of ignoring and not ignoring content tagged with
15:17:24 <nigel> ... specific languages, for example Spanish and English, where some higher level processor is selecting one of those languages to display.
15:17:59 <nigel> reopen issue-312
15:17:59 <trackbot> Re-opened issue-312.
15:18:14 <nigel> issue-313?
15:18:14 <trackbot> issue-313 -- Presented Region section is informative only -- pending review
15:18:14 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/tracker/issues/313
15:23:24 <nigel> glenn: showBackground and visibility also apply to region.
15:24:03 <nigel> ACTION nigel to re-review issue-313
15:24:03 <trackbot> Created ACTION-302 - Re-review issue-313 [on Nigel Megitt - due 2014-06-26].
15:25:28 <Zakim> -pal
15:25:29 <nigel> issue-306?
15:25:29 <trackbot> issue-306 -- Appendix N.2 omits fractional time expressions -- raised
15:25:29 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/tracker/issues/306
15:29:03 <nigel> glenn: My intention was that if there were a fraction component of seconds then it would be interpreted in the seconds part.
15:29:07 <nigel> open issue-306
15:29:21 <nigel> reopen issue-306
15:29:22 <trackbot> Re-opened issue-306.
15:29:31 <nigel> issue-314?
15:29:31 <trackbot> issue-314 -- Temporally active is not defined for regions -- raised
15:29:31 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/tracker/issues/314
15:31:02 <nigel> reopen issue-314
15:31:02 <trackbot> Re-opened issue-314.
15:31:30 <nigel> glenn: I'm not sure if I agree with this but we can consider it. Before I would agree with that I'd like a use case.
15:31:34 <nigel> q+
15:31:42 <nigel> ack glenn
15:31:45 <nigel> ack nigel
15:32:40 <nigel> nigel: There's an error in the issue - it should say showBackground="always" rather than "true"
15:33:31 <nigel> glenn: I guess in this case "always" is semantically qualified by temporal activity. I agree it should be made explicit. The ancillary question is should we make "always" unqualified.
15:34:50 <nigel> nigel: A use case is if region backgrounds should be painted even when no text is selected into them.
15:34:57 <nigel> reopen issue-314
15:34:57 <trackbot> Re-opened issue-314.
15:35:15 <nigel> issue-321?
15:35:15 <trackbot> issue-321 -- typo - s/ttp:feature/ttp:extension/ in 5th paragraph of 6.1.5 -- raised
15:35:15 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/tracker/issues/321
15:35:33 <nigel> reopen issue-321
15:35:33 <trackbot> Re-opened issue-321.
15:35:41 <nigel> glenn: This is a copy paste error.
15:35:58 <nigel> issue-322?
15:35:58 <trackbot> issue-322 -- Formula for dropNTSC time expressions is incorrect. -- raised
15:35:58 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/tracker/issues/322
15:36:18 <nigel> reopen issue-322
15:36:18 <trackbot> Re-opened issue-322.
15:37:54 <nigel> reopen issue-315
15:37:54 <trackbot> Re-opened issue-315.
15:38:01 <nigel> reopen issue-317
15:38:01 <trackbot> Re-opened issue-317.
15:38:07 <nigel> reopen issue-319
15:38:07 <trackbot> Re-opened issue-319.
15:38:36 <nigel> Topic: Change Proposals
15:39:30 <nigel> nigel: change proposal 2 https://www.w3.org/wiki/TTML/changeProposal002 was discussed last week and amended
15:39:41 <nigel> ... I believe a further edit is in the queue from CP2
15:40:12 <nigel> jdsmith: I think so.
15:41:54 <nigel> nigel: There are Ed Notes in 9.3.2 and 9.3.3 but not in 9.3.5 to add an elaborated example.
15:43:09 <nigel> glenn: expresses concern that over-complicating the examples makes them less useful.
15:43:33 <nigel> ... We also might consider a section in the wiki that has more examples rather than putting them all in the spec itself.
15:44:54 <nigel> nigel: What CPs would folk like to work on in the future?
15:45:40 <nigel> glenn: It would be useful to prioritise. An additional column to indicate priority 1, 2 and 3 might be useful. The owner can tweak the priority.
15:46:00 <nigel> ACTION: nigel Add priority column to Change Proposal Index
15:46:00 <trackbot> Created ACTION-303 - Add priority column to change proposal index [on Nigel Megitt - due 2014-06-26].
15:47:27 <nigel> glenn: We should maybe put a mark in the sand for the change proposals we want to finish before we go to FPWD.
15:47:31 <nigel> nigel: agrees.
15:47:46 <nigel> plh: We need to do a call for exclusions at FPWD.
15:49:16 <nigel> nigel: We set a schedule in March to get to LC in August, and haven't got to FPWD yet.
15:49:30 <nigel> glenn: Maybe August is not impractical for FPWD at this point.
15:49:36 <nigel> nigel: Let's aim for that.
15:49:47 <nigel> Topic: AOB
15:50:03 <nigel> nigel: Regrets from me for next 2 weeks.
15:50:53 <nigel> nigel: As noone has volunteered to chair then I propose that we do not meet until our next on 10th July.
15:51:03 <tmichel> rrsagent, draft minutes
15:51:03 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2014/06/19-tt-minutes.html tmichel
15:51:25 <Zakim> -glenn
15:51:27 <Zakim> -Plh
15:51:31 <Zakim> -[Microsoft]
15:51:34 <Zakim> -nigel
15:52:51 <nigel> d/ack
15:53:58 <nigel> s/ACTION plh/ACTION: plh
15:54:22 <nigel> rrsagent, draft minutes
15:54:22 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2014/06/19-tt-minutes.html nigel
15:55:03 <Zakim> -tmichel
15:55:04 <Zakim> SYMM_TTWG()10:00AM has ended
15:55:04 <Zakim> Attendees were pal, nigel, glenn, tmichel, Plh, [Microsoft]
15:55:56 <nigel> rrsagent, please help
15:55:56 <RRSAgent> I'm logging. I don't understand 'please help', nigel.  Try /msg RRSAgent help
15:57:19 <nigel> s/rrsagent, please help
15:57:23 <nigel> s/ack/
15:57:28 <nigel> rrsagent, draft minutes
15:57:28 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2014/06/19-tt-minutes.html nigel
15:58:34 <nigel> s/d/ack/
15:58:44 <nigel> s/s/rrsagent/
15:58:48 <nigel> rrsagent, draft minutes
15:58:48 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2014/06/19-tt-minutes.html nigel
16:00:42 <nigel> s|d/|
16:00:55 <nigel> s|s/rrsagent, please help|
16:01:00 <nigel> rrsagent, draft minutes
16:01:00 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2014/06/19-tt-minutes.html nigel
16:03:11 <nigel> s|ack|
16:03:13 <nigel> rrsagent, draft minutes
16:03:13 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2014/06/19-tt-minutes.html nigel
16:18:44 <nigel> nigel has left #tt
17:38:51 <Zakim> Zakim has left #tt