See also: IRC log
<trackbot> Date: 23 October 2014
<scribe> scribeNick: nigel
https://www.w3.org/wiki/TimedText/tpac2014
nigel: I've set aside Monday for a variety of things and Tuesday for TTML2, and added multimodal interaction and audio rendering.
jdsmith: Will the audio rendering include use cases and scenarios
nigel: Yes, e.g. audio
description scripting or captured speech markup
... In the absence of other info I'll define lunch to be at
12:30
... and morning break at 10:00 and afternoon break 15:30.
... but of course we can be flexible.
nigel: We have a choice about putting in exit criteria. I've listed some considerations in the agenda.
pal: I'm still gathering information. There are already entry criteria for PR. Those steps are clear.
nigel: The steps are clear but the fulfillment of them is unclear to me - at least we have quite a lot of flexibility.
pal: That's deliberate; some flexibility is useful for the working group.
nigel: Yes, and for this document we have to resolve the flexibility into a decision.
pal: Section 7.2.4 describes the implementation considerations.
nigel: There are a whole bunch of other questions that fall under those too (e.g. what's listed in the agenda)
http://www.w3.org/2014/Process-20140801/#implementation-experience
nigel: My view is it would be useful to state criteria now so we know when to move to PR.
pal: We don't need to do it now though - we can wait until after testing has started.
glenn: The criteria can be as weak as we want to make them. For example the HTML spec followed a weak definition of adequacy.
nigel: I agree: I listed the considerations that we should think about - we don't have to use them all.
glenn: We need a story for each of the bullets in 7.2.4.
pal: In the 2005 process
'adequate implementation experience' was undefined, whereas in
the 2014 process
... it is listed. By definition we have to show the Director we
have a good answer for each of those bullets.
glenn: That list isn't exhaustive
or mandatory though. It's a 'some of the things that will be
considered'.
... For example, feature implementation will be considered.
When we went to CR with TTML1 originally we faced the
issue
... of what it means to specify a feature. This was related to
the test suite requirements, and that drove our
definition
... of features in the profiling mechanism, and our enumeration
of those features in the spec.
... By enumerating them that gave us a list of things we knew
we had to test and talk about re implementation activity.
... That's how we did it in TTML1. We can define features for
testing however we want.
pal: In my view the WG should keep its options open so it can declare when it thinks it has got far enough to move to PR.
glenn: I agree with that. The
point about feature implementation is expected to be talked
about in the transition process.
... So you might want to consider enumerating the features of
IMSC that would be considered criteria for testing
... implementations. It doesn't require that every syntactic or
semantic point be labelled as a feature - it can be
... generalised for example.
pal: I started a wiki page where we will be able to do that, which will also serve as the implementation report.
<pal> https://www.w3.org/wiki/TimedText/IMSC1_Implementation_Report
pal: This is a place where we'll
be able to list the features, sample files and the
implementation experience we've
... received.
nigel: From a project planning
perspective we need some deliverable that we can target, and
that needs to be defined.
... I'll present my thoughts on Monday on this.
http://dev.w3.org/html5/webvtt/webvtt-staged-snapshot.html
Proposal: publish the staged snapshot of WebVTT as a FPWD.
glenn: That draft references the
DOM4 spec and the Encoding Spec. I believe there are now W3C
counterparts to those.
... Can we change those before going to FPWD?
... Also HTML - all are referenced as WHATWG and I'd like to
see them changed to the W3C versions if that can be done.
... That's the only blocking issue for me.
nigel: I think the way to do that is to file a bug using the link in the top right.
glenn: okay I'll do that.
nigel: We'll carry this forward proposal to Monday.
Proposal: use http://www.w3.org/TR/webvtt1/ for the short name.
action-283?
<trackbot> action-283 -- Nigel Megitt to And dsinger to respond to mpeg liaison -- due 2014-11-01 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/tracker/actions/283
action-283: Mike and Dave responded on TTWG's behalf with edits from Nigel and Cyril.
<trackbot> Notes added to action-283 And dsinger to respond to mpeg liaison.
close action-283
<trackbot> Closed action-283.
action-332?
<trackbot> action-332 -- Glenn Adams to Add schema support for ISD vocabulary -- due 2014-10-27 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/tracker/actions/332
glenn: Still working on this one.
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 2014-10-27 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/tracker/actions/333
pal: That's in progress, dependent on completing the response to comments received during the review period, scheduled for Monday.
nigel: I raised 3 issues to cover
the steps needed for the external short code processor profile
parameter.
... In order they are issue-353, issue-351 and issue-352
issue-353?
<trackbot> issue-353 -- Normatively define short code processorProfiles parameter -- raised
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/tracker/issues/353
issue-351?
<trackbot> issue-351 -- Update IANA registration for TTML2 -- raised
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/tracker/issues/351
issue-352?
<trackbot> issue-352 -- Add Media Registration Annex -- raised
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/tracker/issues/352
glenn: I would prefer to put all
of these into a separate document, not TTML2.
... We could publish a WG Note for example that contains these
three items.
nigel: Is there any particular reason not to put it in TTML2?
glenn: We had a lot of iterations
with IANA to get it into TTML1 so it would be good to
disconnect it.
... Plus there's nothing normative in TTML2 that needs to make
reference to it. In fact its the other way round -
... This material might make reference to TTML2 but nothing in
TTML2 normatively needs to make use of it right now.
... It's strictly a function for people embedding TTML2 in MPEG
etc.
nigel: I'd go further - there's
no reason it shouldn't apply to TTML1 too.
... We don't have a product for this yet - I guess we can add
one.
glenn: Also we need to understand
the issue of what it means if both the profile and
processorProfiles parameters
... are included simultaneously. How does that impact backward
compatibility etc?
nigel: That makes sense to me as long as e.g. MPEG is happy to reference a WG Note rather than a Recommendation.
<scribe> ACTION: nigel Check with the MPEG folk if a WG Note would be acceptable. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2014/10/23-tt-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-341 - Check with the mpeg folk if a wg note would be acceptable. [on Nigel Megitt - due 2014-10-30].
Action-341: If a Note is okay, create a Product and reassign issue-351, issue-352 and issue-353 to that product.
<trackbot> Notes added to Action-341 Check with the mpeg folk if a wg note would be acceptable..
nigel: We'll follow that up on Monday or Tuesday.
<glenn> re: WebVTT FPWD, see new bug report at https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=27142 to resolve my concerns
nigel: I should add this topic to the agenda for Tuesday since its a dependency for TTML2 currently.
<scribe> ACTION: nigel Add Change Proposals to the TPAC agenda for Tuesday [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2014/10/23-tt-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-342 - Add change proposals to the tpac agenda for tuesday [on Nigel Megitt - due 2014-10-30].
nigel: We'll meet at 8:30
California time in whatever room we're meeting in - happy
travels to those travelling, and see you then.
... Adjourns meeting.