15:01:09 RRSAgent has joined #tt 15:01:09 logging to http://www.w3.org/2014/11/06-tt-irc 15:01:11 RRSAgent, make logs public 15:01:11 Zakim has joined #tt 15:01:13 Zakim, this will be TTML 15:01:13 ok, trackbot; I see SYMM_TTWG()10:00AM scheduled to start now 15:01:14 Meeting: Timed Text Working Group Teleconference 15:01:14 Date: 06 November 2014 15:01:34 Frans_EBU has joined #tt 15:01:45 zakim, who is on the phone? 15:01:45 SYMM_TTWG()10:00AM has not yet started, nigel 15:01:46 On IRC I see Frans_EBU, Zakim, RRSAgent, nigel, jdsmith, pal, courtney, trackbot 15:02:35 zakim, who is on the phone? 15:02:35 SYMM_TTWG()10:00AM has not yet started, nigel 15:02:36 On IRC I see Frans_EBU, Zakim, RRSAgent, nigel, jdsmith, pal, courtney, trackbot 15:02:45 zakim, this is ttwg 15:02:45 ok, nigel; that matches SYMM_TTWG()10:00AM 15:02:49 zakim, who is on the phone? 15:02:49 On the phone I see jdsmith, pal, [Apple], nigel, Frans 15:03:16 Present: jdsmith, pal, courtney, Frans, nigel 15:03:18 chair: nigel 15:03:26 zakim, [Apple] is courtney 15:03:26 +courtney; got it 15:04:08 Regrets: glenn, andreas, mdolan, cyril 15:04:40 Topic: This meeting 15:04:44 scribeNick: nigel 15:07:16 +Thierry 15:07:24 Present+ Thierry 15:07:30 Topic: IMSC 1 review comments 15:08:00 https://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/34314/WD-ttml-imsc1-20140930/ 15:08:39 pal: I've proposed a resolution on all the comments, so I can walk through them and point out the document edits 15:08:57 ... LC-2983 15:09:14 ... No actionable comments. Thanking DVB for input would be appropriate. 15:09:34 Action: pal Thank DVB for input re LC-2983 15:09:34 Created ACTION-348 - Thank dvb for input re lc-2983 [on Pierre-Anthony Lemieux - due 2014-11-13]. 15:09:50 pal: LC-2982 15:10:04 ... I've added Example 4 as a code example for Forced Content. 15:10:48 http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/Guide2LCtracker/overview.html 15:11:59 pal: I propose moving LC-2982 to pending for review by the group in the next week, then moving to resolved prior to sending out. 15:12:21 tmichel: Yes, once we have the resolution from the WG then I or Nigel can send the response back to the commenter. 15:12:49 pal: In this case we could move directly to Resolved-yes, but maybe giving the group a week to resolve it and move to Pending in the meantime. 15:13:01 nigel: Yes please, move it to Pending. 15:13:04 pal: Doing that. 15:13:22 pal: LC-2975 15:13:55 pal: I thought I'd replaced all of 'subtitle document' with the TTML1 defined term 'Document Instance' - it turns out maybe not. 15:14:41 ... I've added the defined term Document Instance too. 15:15:02 pal: I've found the two instances, fixing right now. 15:16:09 ... done. 15:16:43 ... That'll be corrected next time I commit to trunk. 15:16:50 nigel: I think that'll fix it. 15:16:55 pal: LC-2976 15:17:41 ... I've revised section 5.1 to add "The method by which this association is made is left to each application." 15:17:49 group: seems happy with that. 15:17:53 pal: Moving that one to Pending. 15:18:19 pal: LC-2968 - we covered this at TPAC already and there's already a proposed resolution. 15:18:51 ... I added an informative note on section 8.3 explaining how it can be done in TTML1 using multiple regions. 15:19:04 pal: LC-2973 15:19:32 pal: There were really two comments here. Firstly, trying to clarify what a conforming processor should do with foreign namespaces attributes and elements. 15:19:52 ... Secondly that the specification did not forbid the introduction of new elements and attributes in the IMSC namespace outside W3C. 15:20:17 ... In §6.3 I've added a paragraph to replicate TTML1 to state that the namespace is mutable and reserved by W3C for future expansion. 15:20:53 ... I also added in §6.2 the same prose as in TTML1 to say that a document may contain elements and attributes that are neither 15:21:18 ... specifically permitted nor forbidden by a profile 15:21:29 jdsmith: So the implication is you would tolerate extra attributes? 15:22:00 pal: That's right - the intent is to replicate what was in TTML1. Andreas's concern was that 'ignore' for a transformation 15:22:13 ... processor isn't clear - does it mean 'remove' or 'keep and do nothing'. 15:22:51 nigel: It's possibly not clear what a processor should do if it encounters a non-IMSC element or attribute. 15:24:53 nigel: Perhaps the language from TTML1 §3.2.1 Generic Processor Performance should be brought in (3rd list item). 15:25:01 pal: That's already brought in by reference. 15:25:25 pal: I think Andreas's issue was the term 'ignore' which might be considered to force processors to drop such entities. 15:26:20 jdsmith: This seems subtle but complete when you consider the TTML1 references. 15:26:23 pal: Marking as pending. 15:26:29 nigel: Andreas has an opportunity to verify this. 15:26:36 pal: LC-2977 Forced Display. 15:27:01 ... The first part of the comment is that not all combinations of values are described. I've added a sentence to the second 15:27:07 ... paragraph to cover other combinations. 15:27:34 ... The second part of the comment is about improving the note by pointing out it only applies to non-transparent background. 15:28:49 ... My take on this is that the note doesn't only apply in that case. Unless we're absolutely certain then I'm concerned about 15:28:52 ... making it too narrow. 15:30:32 nigel: I think possibly padding could apply, but as written the comment is accurate I believe. It's still reasonable to make 15:30:49 ... no change given how specific that circumstance is, and to respond to the commenter that this is our decision. 15:31:14 pal: I've slightly changed the wording of the note in the editor's draft to make it a bit easier to read. 15:32:44 ... The biggest edit is a reference back to TTML1 to describe the circumstances in which this applies. 15:35:29 nigel: We could respond that 'While technically the note may only apply when a non-transparent background is applied to a region the intent has a broader applicability, to warn authors...' 15:35:58 pal: I'm updating it now. 15:36:20 pal: Also marking as pending. 15:36:28 pal: LC-2978 altText 15:37:09 ... I added a document convention section to reference the conventions used in TTML1 for specifying styling attributes and XML elements. 15:38:06 ... That should satisfy the commenter. 15:38:33 nigel: There's a reader-friendliness question whether it's okay to refer to another document just for document conventions, but normatively this does address the comment. 15:38:59 pal: So much of this document is dependent on TTML1 that the reader needs to be aware of TTML1 anyway. 15:39:07 pal: Marking as pending. 15:39:23 pal: LC-2979 15:39:38 -Thierry 15:39:55 ... Constraints on the #timing feature. The text previously said "The same syntax of #clock-time or #offset-time should be used throughout the subtitle document." 15:40:07 ... I read the comment from the commenter on what this means to use the same syntax. 15:40:42 ... I tried to be more specific here in this revision by stating that: "A Document Instance should use either the offset-time or offset-time syntax for all time expressions used therein." 15:41:42 ... Oh I see there's a typo here. This should read: "A Document Instance should use either the clock-time or offset-time syntax for all time expressions used therein." 15:42:26 ... This is just to make it easier for instance documents to read. 15:43:15 nigel: I'm not sure how this addresses Andreas's question. 15:43:33 pal: They would all be examples of clock time syntax so they would be the same syntax. 15:44:52 ... The revised text tries to be more specific. 15:45:43 nigel: As written this doesn't require that all time expressions must use the same syntax throughout the document. 15:45:45 ... How about: 15:46:24 ... "All time expressions within a Document Instance should use the same syntax, either clock-time or offset-time." 15:46:43 pal: Looks fine to me. 15:47:13 pal: I'm making the change and will make it Pending after committing. 15:47:38 pal: LC-2974 #length-cell 15:47:57 ... #length-cell was forbidden but that conflicted with ebutts:linePadding which uses length-cell. So I've updated the 15:48:04 ... constraint to make an exception for ebutts:linePadding. 15:48:30 pal: Marking as pending. 15:49:12 pal: LC-2980 default Region 15:49:51 ... I've now made this a defined term pointing back to TTML1's definition. 15:50:00 pal: Marking as pending. 15:50:09 pal: LC-2981 Reference fonts 15:50:31 pal: This is text we hadn't touched for a while so it prompted me to go into this deeper. The intent was really not so much 15:50:49 ... to mandate a processor behaviour but to ensure that the document is authored using those reference fonts when applicable. 15:51:03 ... Of course a presentation processor can choose whether or not to use those reference fonts. 15:51:21 ... I've pulled out Reference Fonts from the HRM - the HRM is now only about document constraints. 15:51:29 ... I've moved Reference Fonts to the Text Profile sections. 15:52:20 ... This reads as a requirement on the authored document. 15:53:18 nigel: This doesn't actually require that text doesn't overflow the region even when laid out using the reference font metrics. 15:53:50 pal: That's an authorial decision - if the author wants to overflow that choice is available. 15:54:16 ... The next step if we want to be stronger is to make it a normative requirement on presentation processors. 15:54:18 ... That's the comment. 15:54:23 nigel: I'd made the same misreading. 15:54:40 pal: It's not entirely clear in CFF-TT. An implementor reading this and implementing a presentation processor would be 15:54:57 ... ill-advised not to use the metrics of the reference fonts because otherwise the document will not look like the author 15:55:01 ... intended. 15:56:47 nigel: The problem is that any test written against this spec text would have nothing to check. 15:57:08 pal: If there's any doubt here then I'd rather make it a presentation processor requirement to make it crystal clear and adopt 15:57:18 ... what the commenter suggested, and be prescriptive on processors. 15:58:09 nigel: I think we need a good review period on this since it could be viewed as a substantive change by some readers. 15:58:36 pal: I'll make the edit as suggested by the commenter and set it to pending, and we can discuss it next week. 15:59:07 pal: For all the other ones that are marked pending can we ask the group to review and we can mark any with no comments 15:59:10 ... as resolved. 15:59:13 nigel: I think so. 15:59:20 s/so./so, yes. 15:59:50 Topic: Incoming Liaisons 16:00:06 nigel: We have an MPEG liaison and one from ITU-R Working Party 6B 16:00:12 http://www.itu.int/en/ITU-R/study-groups/rsg6/rwp6b/Pages/default.aspx 16:00:49 nigel: ITU has requested that IMSC be submitted before 10th November. Any objections to submitting it for information. 16:01:16 RESOLUTION: We will submit IMSC 1 to ITU-R Working Party 6B for information by 10th November. 16:01:32 Action: nigel submit IMSC 1 to ITU-R Working Party 6B by 10th November 16:01:32 Created ACTION-349 - Submit imsc 1 to itu-r working party 6b by 10th november [on Nigel Megitt - due 2014-11-13]. 16:01:52 pal: I can assist if need be. 16:03:31 Topic: Action Items 16:03:39 action-341? 16:03:39 action-341 -- Nigel Megitt to Check with the mpeg folk if a wg note would be acceptable. -- due 2014-10-30 -- PENDINGREVIEW 16:03:39 http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/tracker/actions/341 16:03:44 close action-341 16:03:44 Closed action-341. 16:03:45 -courtney 16:03:47 -pal 16:03:49 action-342? 16:03:49 action-342 -- Nigel Megitt to Add change proposals to the tpac agenda for tuesday -- due 2014-10-30 -- PENDINGREVIEW 16:03:49 http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/tracker/actions/342 16:03:55 close action-342 16:03:55 Closed action-342. 16:04:04 Topic: Issues raised 16:04:07 issue-351? 16:04:07 issue-351 -- Update IANA registration for TTML2 -- raised 16:04:07 http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/tracker/issues/351 16:04:10 reopen issue-351 16:04:10 Re-opened issue-351. 16:04:15 issue-352? 16:04:16 issue-352 -- Add Media Registration Annex -- raised 16:04:16 -Frans 16:04:16 http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/tracker/issues/352 16:04:18 -jdsmith 16:04:21 reopen issue-352 16:04:21 Re-opened issue-352. 16:04:25 issue-353? 16:04:25 issue-353 -- Normatively define short code processorProfiles parameter -- raised 16:04:25 http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/tracker/issues/353 16:04:28 reopen issue-353 16:04:29 Re-opened issue-353. 16:04:42 Topic: Future meetings 16:05:02 nigel: I will make the November meetings all 1 hour unless anyone tells me they think we need longer (where 'anyone' includes me!) 16:05:15 nigel: thank you everyone, let's meet in a week. 16:05:21 ... [adjourns meeting] 16:05:24 rrsagent, make logs public 16:05:27 rrsagent, generate minutes 16:05:27 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2014/11/06-tt-minutes.html nigel 16:05:33 -nigel 16:05:34 SYMM_TTWG()10:00AM has ended 16:05:34 Attendees were jdsmith, pal, nigel, Frans, courtney, Thierry 16:07:13 s/... That'll be/pal: That'll be 16:07:59 s/do nothing'./do nothing'? 16:10:36 rrsagent, generate minutes 16:10:36 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2014/11/06-tt-minutes.html nigel 16:12:54 ScribeOptions: -final -noEmbedDiagnostics 16:12:55 rrsagent, generate minutes 16:12:55 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2014/11/06-tt-minutes.html nigel 17:11:52 Zakim has left #tt 18:10:52 bean has joined #tt 18:11:15 bean has left #tt