See also: IRC log
<trackbot> Date: 02 October 2014
<scribe> scribeNick: nigel
nigel: notes that Further Ahead section needs to extend into November.
http://www.w3.org/wiki/TimedText/tpac2014
nigel: I've updated the wiki
page. Please fill in the Attendee section.
... For agenda items, please go through me.
glenn: I expect to have more on TTML2 as I wrap up some more things.
nigel: Lists members and observers registered for TPAC. I plan to allow all observer requests.
nigel: I've sent liaisons
internally to all the relevant W3C groups on our charter.
... I've drafted an external liaison and discussed some edits
with Pierre. The main question is who should we write to.
... There's a very long list of potential recipients, taking
into account the charter and the liaisons. There are 38
liaisons including 27 for WAI.
pal: It would be a useful
reference point to consider the wide review requirement in the
2005 process for LC -> CR.
... I'm concerned that we could send this to too many
groups.
glenn: I agree that we should only send to those groups that we can expect a timely response from.
tmichel: I agree too - the Director will be satisfied if we only talk to the groups on the charter.
http://www.w3.org/2001/11/StdLiaison.html
nigel: I would propose to send to the charter groups and the liaisons noted as interested in Timed Text and Web and TV.
pal: I'm concerned about generating too many conversations.
glenn: DLNA may just come back to
me, if at all. HbbTV may be interested in it though.
... Remember that we need to demonstrate primarily that there's
been wide review and secondly some technical feedback.
nigel: I've decided to send to
the charter list and the liaisons listed for Timed Text and Web
and TV.
... Summarises content of note.
<inserted> pal: the notes above did not capture my input correctly re: sending an email blast to multiple groups without a clear knowledge of whether the group is interested (and/or who the right contact is): (a) it generates work for both TTWG and the target group with only limited chances of feedback, (b) many of these groups have members that are already members of W3C and TTWG and (c) it looks like it is not required from a process perspective
action-236?
<trackbot> action-236 -- Glenn Adams to Review consistent use of "root temporal extent" in both ttml 2 and ttml 1 se -- due 2014-08-31 -- PENDINGREVIEW
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/tracker/actions/236
nigel: The link doesn't work for me.
glenn: This is a known issue with
the Mercurial server, and occurs sporadically.
... I introduced the mediaOffset, however we have some ongoing
discussion on that.
close action-236
<trackbot> Closed action-236.
glenn: The biggest question for
me on this whole topic is: what is the meaning of
BEGIN(document) - is it 0s always or something else? Nigel's
asked that too.
... I'm still considering this.
... In other words is BEGIN(document)-ORIGIN(document)=0 in all
cases or is it possibly non-zero in some cases.
action-286?
<trackbot> action-286 -- Glenn Adams to Send an email to public-tt describing the ttv hosting site at w3c -- due 2014-08-31 -- PENDINGREVIEW
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/tracker/actions/286
close action-286
<trackbot> Closed action-286.
glenn: To get the w3c version back up I need to interact with some staff - I'm not sure when I can do that. Use the backup site in the meantime.
action-287?
<trackbot> action-287 -- Glenn Adams to Elaborate on wording in ยง4 on namespace extension in ttml2 and as an errata to ttml1 -- due 2014-08-31 -- PENDINGREVIEW
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/tracker/actions/287
glenn: I couldn't identify an
issue that needed a specific change here.
... I reviewed the notes from when this was created.
close action-287
<trackbot> Closed action-287.
action-320?
<trackbot> action-320 -- Glenn Adams to Review https://www.w3.org/wiki/ttml/codecsregistry w.r.t. recent ttml2 changes in profile definition mechanisms -- due 2014-08-21 -- PENDINGREVIEW
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/tracker/actions/320
glenn: I made a minor editorial
note to the codecs registry page. I'd note that we haven't
concluded on this topic.
... This should be an agenda topic at the F2F, because we
should have the right people present, hopefully.
<pal> +1
<scribe> ACTION: nigel Add codecs registry to F2F agenda at TPAC [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2014/10/02-tt-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-336 - Add codecs registry to f2f agenda at tpac [on Nigel Megitt - due 2014-10-09].
close action-320
<trackbot> Closed action-320.
nigel: These are both mine and I haven't done them.
Action-332?
<trackbot> Action-332 -- Glenn Adams to Add schema support for ISD vocabulary -- due 2014-10-01 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/tracker/actions/332
glenn: I have coded the newly
defined ISD spec into the TTV and created a TTX transformer
tool that allows ISDs to be created from a TTML file.
... In this way I'm verifying the viability of the newly
defined vocabulary.
action-333?
<trackbot> action-333 -- Pierre-Anthony Lemieux to Create a one pager to cover the plan for the director's meeting for taking imsc1 to cr. -- due 2014-10-02 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/tracker/actions/333
nigel: Let's postpone this one due to the change in plan for IMSC.
nigel: We planned to do this last week; that didn't happen.
glenn: I'd like to retarget this to around the time of TPAC, to get some substantial pieces in, primarily the ISD creation rules and the HTML mapping.
nigel: Okay I'll rejig the timeline and discuss with you. I'm tempted to go just after TPAC so the group can feedback if necessary.
glenn: Sounds good. I'm making
good progress on a variety of issues and it's better to get
more in than less, if we can.
... Also, once we have the FPWD published it's simple to
publish new ones - we don't have to go long between them.
... I'm expecting to close the P1 CPs by FPWD.
issue-228?
<trackbot> issue-228 -- Ruby text support -- pending review
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/tracker/issues/228
glenn: I mapped 3 style
properties that map to the CSS ruby display styles for the base
and different container types and delimiter.
... And there are position and align attributes. This gives us
a good baseline to work with and supports the basic Ruby text
needs.
... There's one open technical issue that was posted by pal for
SMPTE compatibility, which is the need to specify the offset of
the container boxes from the base box.
... I didn't do that because HTML and CSS don't support that at
the moment. We could define properties but they wouldn't have a
mapping.
nigel: I also noted that it uses a syntax different to the HTML syntax, and requires nested spans. I don't have an issue with that though.
pal: So now would be a good time to review?
glenn: yes.
... There are different flavours of syntax in XHTML and HTML5
and the CSS formulation shows that no markup is needed, just
some style properties.
... I took the more CSS approach to make the Ruby more
orthogonal via styling than adding new markup with the extra
overhead for that.
pal: The SMPTE submission from
ST4287 is in use today with content being made today with that
Ruby markup so we should have a good rationale for
... ignoring the recommendations there.
glenn: The proposal didn't say to adopt the syntax from SMPTE.
pal: Re the need to offset, that caught my attention. We should be careful about not supporting features from things that are actually in use today.
glenn: If what is proposed is functionally inadequate then I suggest that issues are raised with the specifics.
nigel: I suggest pal reviews and
we leave this as Pending Review in the meantime.
... Adjourns meeting. We have 1 hour scheduled for next week.
Thanks everyone.
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.138 of Date: 2013-04-25 13:59:11 Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/ Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00) Succeeded: i/Topic: Action items pending/pal: the notes above did not capture my input correctly re: sending an email blast to multiple groups without a clear knowledge of whether the group is interested (and/or who the right contact is): (a) it generates work for both TTWG and the target group with only limited chances of feedback, (b) many of these groups have members that are already members of W3C and TTWG and (c) it looks like it is not required from a process perspective Succeeded: s/pal: the notes above did not capture my input correctly re: sending an email blast to multiple groups without a clear knowledge of whether the group is interested (and/or who the right contact is): (a) it generates work for both TTWG and the target group with only limited chances of feedback, (b) many of these groups have members that are already members of W3C and TTWG and (c) it looks like it is not required from a process perspective/ FAILED: s|d/pal: the notes above did not capture my input correctly re: sending an email blast to multiple groups without a clear knowledge of whether the group is interested (and/or who the right contact is): (a) it generates work for both TTWG and the target group with only limited chances of feedback, (b) many of these groups have members that are already members of W3C and TTWG and (c) it looks like it is not required from a process perspective|| Succeeded: s|d/or who the right contact is): (a) it generates work for both TTWG and the target group with only limited chances of feedback, (b) many of these groups have members that are already members of W3C and TTWG and (c) it looks like it is not required from a process perspective/or || Succeeded: s|who the right contact is): (a) it generates work for both TTWG and the target group with only limited chances of feedback, (b) many of these groups have members that are already members of W3C and TTWG and (c) it looks like it is not required from a process perspective|| Succeeded: s|who the right contact is): (a) it generates work for both TTWG and the target group with only limited chances of feedback, (b) many of these groups have members that are already members of W3C and TTWG and (c) it looks like it is not required from a process perspective|| Succeeded: s|d/pal: the notes above did not capture my input correctly re: sending an email blast to multiple groups without a clear knowledge of whether the group is interested (and/or || Succeeded: s/s|// Succeeded: s/(a) it generates work for both TTWG and the target group with only limited chances of feedback, (b) many of these groups have members that are already members of W3C and TTWG and (c) it looks like it is not required from a process perspective// Succeeded: s|pal: the notes above did not capture my input correctly re: sending an email blast to multiple groups without a clear knowledge of whether the group is interested (and/or who the right contact is): || Succeeded: s/|// Found ScribeNick: nigel Inferring Scribes: nigel Present: glenn courtney tmichel pal nigel jdsmith Regrets: frans_de_jong Found Date: 02 Oct 2014 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2014/10/02-tt-minutes.html People with action items: add codecs nigel registry[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]