13:58:18 RRSAgent has joined #tt 13:58:18 logging to http://www.w3.org/2015/06/11-tt-irc 13:58:20 RRSAgent, make logs public 13:58:20 Zakim has joined #tt 13:58:22 Zakim, this will be TTML 13:58:22 ok, trackbot; I see SYMM_TTWG()10:00AM scheduled to start in 2 minutes 13:58:23 Meeting: Timed Text Working Group Teleconference 13:58:23 Date: 11 June 2015 14:01:53 Present: nigel, tmichel 14:01:58 chair: nigel 14:02:00 scribe: nigel 14:03:58 Present+ pal 14:04:23 Present+ Andreas 14:05:46 Present+ Thierry 14:06:06 atai2 has joined #tt 14:06:06 present- tmichel 14:06:16 Topic: This Meeting 14:07:22 nigel: Goes through agenda. AOB? 14:07:25 group: no AOB 14:07:32 Topic: Action Items 14:08:53 Regrets: Frans 14:10:08 nigel: The AIs in this section are all for Glenn, but he's not on the call right now so we'll move on. 14:10:21 Topic: Issues 14:10:51 issue-389? 14:10:51 issue-389 -- Embedded graphics don't fully meet requirement -- raised 14:10:51 http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/tracker/issues/389 14:11:34 reopen issue-389 14:11:35 Re-opened issue-389. 14:12:08 nigel: I noticed that the requirement for embedded images also includes a requirement for any 14:12:26 ... source text to be included, as a SHALL. This isn't anywhere in TTML2. I guess a resolution to this, 14:12:44 ... following on from our discussions on this topic for IMSC 1, could be to relax the requirement. 14:13:22 issue-369? 14:13:22 issue-369 -- The R### numbers in Annex L are not all correct -- pending review 14:13:22 http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/tracker/issues/369 14:14:30 nigel: Nobody can sensibly review this right now because the html hasn't been generated for the ED. 14:14:43 ... I've left that for Glenn, but I can do it if needed. He did tell me he would do it. 14:14:58 issue-390? 14:14:58 issue-390 -- Editorial remarks -- pending review 14:14:58 http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/tracker/issues/390 14:16:10 pal: I made a pass for consistency. I did not capitalise the first letters in lists because it's part of the 14:16:13 ... same sentence. 14:16:29 ... I also indented the equations to make them more readable. 14:17:39 nigel: I noticed that one of the bullet lists doesn't end in a period, in §9.5. 14:17:59 pal: Oh yes, there's one missing. I'll fix that... 14:18:41 pal: I'll do the one in Appendix B too. 14:21:00 nigel: There are two in §9.2 too. 14:21:04 pal: Done. I'll upload that. 14:21:19 issue-391? 14:21:19 issue-391 -- Yiddish in captions/subtitles -- pending review 14:21:19 http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/tracker/issues/391 14:21:52 pal: This is a request to add in some more code points. There's more than meets the eye there. 14:22:05 ... I've reached out to the individual who was involved in adding Hebrew to CFF-TT and he doesn't 14:22:33 ... know of a practical example of Yiddish in captions, which is why it was not in CFF-TT. 14:22:47 ... I also looked at CLDR, and the Yiddish component is not complete, it's under 'work'. Also that 14:22:59 ... section is only a recommendation, and the long term plan is to move the whole section into CLDR. 14:23:14 ... I've made some progress to get Unicode to put into CLDR the areas that are safe for captions and 14:23:32 ... subtitles. I think it's therefore safe to push this into IMSC 2. Maybe CLDR would be done by then, 14:23:48 ... and the non-trivial work to include Yiddish would be done. So I propose to defer it to IMSC 2. 14:24:04 nigel: Sounds reasonable to me. Any other views? 14:25:09 nigel: I've reopened the issue and assigned it to IMSC 2. 14:25:27 pal: CLDR has a whole list of practices for each locale, and so I think adding an additional 14:25:42 ... category in each locale for subtitles and captions would be good - I reached out to the folk there 14:25:58 ... and they were not unresponsive to the idea, so I plan to work with them, and make the reference 14:26:12 ... in IMSC 2 just point to that. It would have much wider applicability than IMSC. 14:26:26 issue-392? 14:26:26 issue-392 -- Uppercase and periods in CLDR definitions -- pending review 14:26:26 http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/tracker/issues/392 14:26:54 pal: It turns out that the CLDR examplar character set does not include upper case versions of the 14:27:11 ... characters, I think by design to keep the list short and to use Unicode's lower case to upper case 14:27:26 ... mappings. So it is true that on the previous version the upper case versions of characters in CLDR 14:27:39 ... were not included in that set in IMSC 1 so I've modified the definition to include the upper case 14:27:46 ... versions of the exemplar characters. 14:28:20 pal: It's in Annex B 14:28:49 nigel: Looks reasonable to me. 14:29:39 nigel: If you're chairing next week and there are no more comments, I think it would be fine to close this issue. 14:29:48 issue-393? 14:29:48 issue-393 -- Related Audio Object? -- pending review 14:29:48 http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/tracker/issues/393 14:30:18 pal: The specification contains specific requirements for when associating an IMSC 1 document 14:30:30 ... with a related video object. Maybe that's where the confusion was with the commenter. It doesn't 14:30:47 ... say you can't associate the document with other media objects. I've added a note to clarify that. 14:31:08 ... That's in §6.5 14:31:31 nigel: Looks good to me. 14:31:59 pal: I think the confusion is that MAY is not a permission, it's a possibility. 14:32:31 issue-394? 14:32:31 issue-394 -- Rational definition -- pending review 14:32:31 http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/tracker/issues/394 14:32:47 pal: That's an awesome title! 14:33:03 ... Glenn even commented. 14:33:17 ... The commenter was being very thorough and noticing that the syntax is applied to a string, but 14:33:35 ... 00 != 0 is a numerical comparison. The two strings are unequal even though their decimal 14:33:52 ... interpretations are in fact equal. So I changed slightly the definition to make it clear that the 14:34:05 ... comparison is on the parsed integer representations of the strings, not the strings themselves. 14:34:26 ... And on the question "Can I use 01 01?" my answer is yes, just like you can use 240 10 instead of 14:34:44 ... 24 1 - there's an infinite rabbit hole there if you try to limit what fractions are permitted. I don't 14:34:52 ... see any reason to limit the set of valid fractions. 14:35:47 nigel: Playing devil's advocate, is int("string") != 0? What about 'not a number'? 14:36:08 pal: I thought about that, but it's an endless hole so I stopped there. Notice the following line limits 14:36:22 ... the numerator and denominator to a string of digits, so you can't really do anything that would 14:36:41 ... allow the int() operator to return something egregious. I believe the previous text was from TTML. 14:36:45 nigel: I think that's right. 14:36:57 nigel: Again, looks good to me. 14:37:16 issue-395? 14:37:16 issue-395 -- Error behavior -- pending review 14:37:16 http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/tracker/issues/395 14:37:47 pal: There's no change. There is already a definition of what happens when there's an error. 14:38:02 ... If you go back to §6.9, it says the sequence of ISDs must go through the HRM without error, so it 14:38:06 s/it/if 14:38:14 pal: there's an error then that fails. 14:38:29 atai2: It may be related to the processor behaviour rather than the document conformance. 14:38:37 pal: We kept that open because it depends on the circumstances. 14:39:46 nigel: Are you not also saying that any compliant processor can always process a compliant document? 14:40:02 pal: Exactly. If the error occurs then that defines the document as non-compliant, and therefore 14:40:05 ... outside the standard. 14:40:21 atai2: Is it worth saying anything about error recovery? 14:41:10 pal: We could add a note that error recovery is not specified. 14:41:28 atai2: I think this could be helpful so that if a document is not compliant to one of the profiles of 14:41:46 ... IMSC it does not mean that a processor must reject the document and abort processing. It is just 14:41:54 ... undefined what happens. 14:42:18 pal: §3.2.1 in TTML1 is a generic processor conformance section, so let's see... there's some text there 14:42:54 ... for instance 'a processor does not a priori reject or abort the processing of a conformant Document Instance..." 14:42:58 s/'/" 14:43:09 atai2: But this is the case of the non-conformant document instance. 14:43:28 ... I think it's a really important topic - actually it was one of the reasons why HTML did not choose 14:43:43 ... TTML for integration; they pointed out that the error handling for XML documents was too 14:43:53 ... inflexible. So to say something about that could be helpful. 14:44:03 pal: Do you want to add a comment to the issue and I'll add a note. 14:45:38 issue-395: [meeting 2015-06-11] This specification does not specify processor behaviour when processing or transforming a non-conformant document instance 14:45:38 Notes added to issue-395 Error behavior. 14:46:04 issue-370? 14:46:04 issue-370 -- Implement Requirements conformance changes described in Action-372 -- open 14:46:04 http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/tracker/issues/370 14:46:18 nigel: I made some edits for this but there are further requirements that need reassessment. 14:46:43 Topic: IMSC CR2, Test Suite and Implementation Report 14:46:56 action-388? 14:46:56 action-388 -- Thierry Michel to Start preparing the imsc 1 implementation report form. -- due 2015-04-17 -- OPEN 14:46:56 http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/tracker/actions/388 14:46:56 https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/1/IMSC1-implementation/ 14:47:49 tmichel: I've started drafting the WBS questionnaire to gather the implementation report. 14:47:53 ... Two issues to discuss. 14:48:10 ... 1) We will be collecting reports from different companies, and probably some will not want to 14:48:24 ... display their name or their implementation name. So either the result of the questionnaire 14:48:36 ... remains team-only visible, or the other proposal is that the result is available for W3C members 14:48:50 ... plus for people wanting to anonymise their company, they can send a text version of the WBS to 14:49:06 ... me, so therefore there would be two places where we are collecting, either the online WBS or 14:49:15 ... private reports sent directly to me. I'm not sure what you think? 14:50:08 nigel: I've expressed my preference separately by email. 14:50:34 tmichel: Okay, then the WBS is as now. 14:51:11 ... 2) Then there's the question of the implementation name. 14:51:29 ... And there's the format issue - I wanted to reproduce the table like pal did. I've asked the system 14:51:54 ... team to add support for tables etc. Or the other solution is to use
    . I'm not a fan. 14:51:59 nigel: I think it's good enough, that's all. 14:52:14 tmichel: Okay we can stick with that. If you look at the implementation I've added 10 questions. I 14:52:30 ... will be adding all the tests. If you have any remarks or suggestions feel free to send to the group 14:52:32 ... and to me. 14:53:06 tmichel: One last detail: For each question the response is optional. Should I make all the questions 14:53:19 ... mandatory? I was thinking about keeping them optional, so if people don't want to respond 14:53:27 ... we can consider it as not implemented. 14:53:44 atai2: I think it's fine to keep it optional so you can get more results otherwise people won't submit 14:53:50 ... if they have some questions missing. 14:53:56 nigel: Agreed. 14:54:07 tmichel: Okay. The only two questions I will make mandatory are the company name and the 14:54:09 ... implementation name. 14:54:32 ... We must track those to avoid non-serious responses. 14:55:17 nigel: I think we need to ask separately for the product name and the name to show on the report, which 14:55:22 ... could be anonymous. 14:55:33 tmichel: Should we require people to have W3C accounts? 14:55:50 pal: I think we should minimise the pain. The fundamental issue is that we're asking people who 14:56:03 ... are not familiar with W3C and the process to contribute details of their implementations, so the 14:56:07 ... least amount of work the better. 14:56:13 atai2: Agree with pal on this. 14:56:32 tmichel: That was also my view, which is why I didn't require a W3C account to respond. I'm fine 14:56:46 ... with that solution. I do need to request the person's email so we can investigate if necessary. 14:57:04 nigel: That's right. By the way I also support this approach of not needing a W3C account. 14:57:28 tmichel: What should I ask for, an email address? 14:57:37 nigel: Just ask for a way to contact the respondent - they can choose how. 14:57:45 tmichel: I'll complete this and we can review it next week. 14:57:54 pal: How can this 'go out'? 14:58:12 tmichel: We can send it to potential implementors that we know of as part of our outreach to them. 14:58:27 pal: Okay, then I owe you a list of potential implementors. Have you put together an email or anything? 14:58:34 tmichel: Not yet. I can start drafting something. 14:58:52 Action: tmichel draft an outreach email for the IMSC implementation report 14:58:52 Created ACTION-405 - Draft an outreach email for the imsc implementation report [on Thierry Michel - due 2015-06-18]. 14:59:25 pal: I'll put Action-387 on the top of my list now. 14:59:40 Topic: WebVTT review feedback 14:59:45 action-395? 14:59:45 action-395 -- Thierry Michel to Chase the accessibility wg for a date for getting webvtt feedback -- due 2015-04-17 -- OPEN 14:59:45 http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/tracker/actions/395 15:00:34 tmichel: The a11y guys had already responded and said they would probably send more details, 15:00:47 ... which we have not received, so I pinged them last week and they said that they will have no more 15:00:49 ... comments. 15:00:52 close action-395 15:00:52 Closed action-395. 15:01:26 Topic: AOB 15:02:18 nigel: I did want to ask about HTMLCue but shall we postpone that? 15:03:32 atai2: Yes, we can talk about that next week. 15:03:44 pal: I'll contact timeless about the IMSC issues, and point him at the tracker. 15:03:49 nigel: Thanks for that. 15:04:08 nigel: We're out of time for today so I'll adjourn. I'm away for 2 weeks: thanks in advance to Pierre 15:04:26 ... who has volunteered to chair. See you in 3 weeks. [adjourns meeting] 15:04:31 rrsagent, make logs public 15:04:36 rrsagent, generate minutes 15:04:36 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2015/06/11-tt-minutes.html nigel 15:16:36 nigel_ has joined #tt 15:18:19 rrsagent, generate minutes 15:18:19 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2015/06/11-tt-minutes.html nigel_ 15:19:12 i/issue-392?/nigel: That's a great idea. 15:19:14 rrsagent, generate minutes 15:19:14 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2015/06/11-tt-minutes.html nigel 15:20:21 ScribeOptions: -final -noEmbedDiagnostics 15:20:23 rrsagent, generate minutes 15:20:23 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2015/06/11-tt-minutes.html nigel 16:10:57 Zakim has left #tt