14:59:18 RRSAgent has joined #tt 14:59:18 logging to http://www.w3.org/2015/11/19-tt-irc 14:59:20 RRSAgent, make logs public 14:59:20 Zakim has joined #tt 14:59:22 Zakim, this will be TTML 14:59:22 I do not see a conference matching that name scheduled within the next hour, trackbot 14:59:23 Meeting: Timed Text Working Group Teleconference 14:59:23 Date: 19 November 2015 14:59:56 Regrets: dakim, atai 15:00:08 pal has joined #tt 15:00:54 tmichel has joined #tt 15:02:05 Present+ pal, nigel 15:03:22 chair: nigel 15:03:26 scribe: nigel 15:05:54 Present+ tmichel 15:07:02 Present+ Frans 15:07:33 Topic: This meeting 15:07:51 We have a new handy Board: http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/board/ 15:07:58 Frans has joined #tt 15:09:10 s/We/nigel: We 15:09:38 nigel: We now have a list of Pull Requests which are a nice thing for us to review. 15:09:50 ... We should think about how long we leave them open for review - I think we said 2 weeks. 15:10:08 pal: We also need to consider PRs geting stale and avoid them needing to be rebased as 15:10:24 ... other code changes around them, so leaving them open for a long time generates more work. 15:11:00 ... So we should go through the PRs. Unless someone objects to merging the PRs maybe 15:11:16 ... the editor should automatically merge after 2 weeks. Then further discussions can 15:11:22 ... be handled with new filed issues. 15:11:29 nigel: I agree with that. 15:12:12 nigel: Also you can clearly identify what went into each change in case you want to back it out later. 15:13:12 nigel: So the proposal for today's meeting is to review the open PRs. Any other business? 15:13:16 group: No AOB. 15:13:26 Topic: Action Items 15:13:32 action-448? 15:13:32 action-448 -- Nigel Megitt to Put timing diagrams somewhere they can be reviews -- due 2015-11-06 -- PENDINGREVIEW 15:13:32 http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/tracker/actions/448 15:13:46 nigel: I did this as a PR which we'll be able to look at later in this meeting. 15:13:59 close action-448 15:13:59 Closed action-448. 15:14:03 action-449? 15:14:04 action-449 -- Philippe Le Hégaret to Create board for ttwg similar to that for webperf -- due 2015-11-19 -- PENDINGREVIEW 15:14:04 http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/tracker/actions/449 15:14:15 nigel: I already mentioned the board, which plh made, so this is done. 15:14:18 close action-449 15:14:18 Closed action-449. 15:15:02 Topic: IMSC 15:16:41 pal: Let's start with PR #88: https://github.com/w3c/imsc/pull/88 15:16:56 nigel: By the way, a quick way to see all the PRs is to look at: https://github.com/w3c/imsc/pulse 15:18:08 nigel: How can we see the HTML natively, with the changes applied? 15:18:57 http://rawgit.com/w3c/imsc/issue-68/spec/ttml-ww-profiles.html 15:20:12 pal: The recipe is, when you click "View document" then click "Raw" and then replace raw.githubusercontent.com with rawgit.com 15:21:47 pal: The changes address the issue on the Note in §9.5. I removed the wording around 15:22:02 ... complex scripts and simple scripts. My research showed that it is sometimes seen as 15:22:29 ... contentious and also incorporates other areas of complexity. 15:23:06 ... I also listed the scripts directly rather than referencing the appendix, and removed appendix H. 15:23:29 ... Appendix H was only going to be referenced once, so there was no advantage in doing that. 15:25:28 nigel: I can't see Appendix 24 at the Unicode link. 15:25:40 pal: It's Annex 24. 15:25:40 http://www.unicode.org/reports/tr24/tr24-24.html 15:26:47 pal: I'll change the wording to point to the right place. 15:28:07 http://www.unicode.org/Public/UCD/latest/ucd/PropertyValueAliases.txt 15:29:52 nigel: Don't you want to include the "common" script in the set with GCpy=12? 15:30:02 pal: I haven't because I haven't gone through everything in common to check it yet. 15:30:18 pal: There's another page where you can see the list of scripts 15:31:14 pal: I'm looking at it now and there are a lot of symbols but they're not all in the recommended characters 15:31:30 ... It's hard to tell if some of those would have a one to many mapping. 15:32:06 pal: I'd like to take an action item to dig deeper into that. Also recall that Glenn still 15:32:19 ... owes us a list of simple vs complex scripts, so we can deal with that together. 15:32:51 Action: pal Check character to glyph mappings for common script value 15:32:51 Created ACTION-450 - Check character to glyph mappings for common script value [on Pierre-Anthony Lemieux - due 2015-11-26]. 15:34:46 pal: Based on what I know we have this, I recommend we merge this and then action further changes if we identify them. 15:34:52 nigel: Seems okay to me. Any other views? 15:34:55 Frans: okay by me 15:35:18 pal: I'll make that change right now and see how it works... 15:41:27 nigel: I can confirm that addresses all my issues in issue #68 15:41:47 pal: That's merged now. 15:42:31 pal: Next I propose we look at the aspectRatio one. 15:42:58 ... It's issue #84 and PR #89 15:43:04 https://github.com/w3c/imsc/issues/84 15:44:40 https://github.com/w3c/imsc/pull/89 15:45:23 pal: I want to make sure that "Related Video Object frame" literally means each image frame of the related video object, 15:45:54 ... regardless of how it is displayed. Because the goal is to capture authorial intent with respect to the positioning relative to elements on the video frame. 15:46:38 nigel: So the goal was not to address the case where not all of the video is shown? 15:46:59 pal: Exactly. That's a similar goal as with synchronisation: capture authorial intent and then 15:47:27 ... let applications handle other scenarios as nicely as they can. 15:47:37 ... It's complex as your presentation shows nicely. 15:48:02 ... I can imagine lots of possibilities, with applications generating different versions. 15:48:08 ... [lists lots of possibilities!] 15:51:29 nigel: We could signal a safe area within the root container, outside of which there's no content. 15:51:46 pal: You can do that by, say, having aspectRatio="4 3". 15:52:03 nigel: That doesn't work on 16:9 video when they're displayed on a 21:9 display - that can 15:52:18 ... clip the container. 15:54:45 group: [discussion about what devices should do if the video frame is not fully shown] 15:55:07 pal: We could add an example for when the display device is not showing all of the 15:55:28 ... related video object frame, to show a reasonable behaviour in that case, vs the one specified. 15:55:34 nigel: Okay 15:55:43 pal: I'll have a go at drafting one that we can then review. 15:56:03 ... The drawback is you lose positioning, but that's a choice that maybe the system in 15:56:11 ... conjunction with the user might correctly take. 15:57:26 pal: Issue #81 is more straightforward. Glenn pointed out that if somebody uses cellResolution on linePadding, 15:57:42 ... the author should be encouraged to set ttp:cellResolution on tt. I looked at EBU-TT-D 15:57:56 ... and it says "should" set cellResolution. The proposal here is to follow that in IMSC 1. 15:58:20 pal: I had an action item to go through the features in IMSC 1 and work out feature 15:58:26 ... dependencies, so I've done that. 15:59:09 nigel: I saw that and was confused that lots of features were being prohibited. 15:59:22 pal: What I did was, for image profile, where parent features were prohibited, I listed the 15:59:28 ... dependent features as being prohibited also. 16:00:27 nigel: That sounds great - we'll do the 2 week review, and if no adverse comments, the Editor can go ahead and Merge the PR. 16:00:52 pal: That will get us to Dec 3, so hopefully then we'll be able to get another CR published. 16:01:00 nigel: Yes, that would be good. 16:01:15 pal: I've started the list of substantive changes and will update further based on these closed issues. 16:01:30 ... There have been a lot of cosmetic changes but I only found 3 substantive changes. 16:01:47 ... For example the changes in the Recommended Characters don't affect conformance. 16:02:41 ... Then there's the change to the HRM, and ttp:profile element being prohibited, the addition of Liberation font to the reference fonts. 16:03:08 nigel: We're out of time now. 16:03:14 pal: Shall we do 2 hours next week? 16:03:18 nigel: Okay, no problem. 16:03:33 Topic: TTML2 16:03:44 nigel: I just wanted quickly to mention the Timing work at https://github.com/w3c/ttml2/pull/143 16:03:54 pal: It looks good - it's a great help. 16:04:01 nigel: Great. The main thing is that the content is right. 16:04:15 pal: Yes, I think it matches my intuitive understanding. The second diagram is one where 16:04:51 ... an external context starts some way through the media timeline, which shrinks the 16:05:12 ... Root Temporal Extent. So the Root Temporal Extent is shrunk by the external context. 16:05:19 nigel: Yes, that's right. 16:07:52 zcorpan has joined #tt 16:07:59 pal: That makes it unambiguous so people have a clear thing to disagree with! 16:10:32 tm has joined #tt 16:10:36 nigel: Great. It would be good for the record if you could add your review comment to the PR. 16:10:36 pal: Done! 16:11:16 nigel: Thanks everyone, we'll meet for 2 hours next week as requested. [adjourns meeting] 16:11:21 rrsagent, generate minutes 16:11:21 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2015/11/19-tt-minutes.html nigel 16:17:56 s/Based on what I know we have this/Based on this 16:19:40 rrsagent, generate minutes 16:19:40 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2015/11/19-tt-minutes.html nigel 16:20:07 ScribeOptions: -final -noEmbedDiagnostics 16:20:08 rrsagent, generate minutes 16:20:08 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2015/11/19-tt-minutes.html nigel 16:21:21 zcorpan has joined #tt 16:22:06 zcorpan has joined #tt 17:11:04 zcorpan has joined #tt 17:24:10 Zakim has left #tt 18:18:42 zcorpan has joined #tt 18:28:19 zcorpan has joined #tt