See also: IRC log
<scribe> scribe: nigel
pal: I need to leave early so can we cover off any IMSC stuff early?
nigel: Yes. AOB anyone?
group: no AOB
nigel: We've had quite a lot of activity. Pierre are we able to review the IMSC changes to see which are substantive?
pal: I was planning to do that next week, but we could do some of them now.
nigel: Anything else to cover?
pal: The only thing is this issue
of the definition of "prohibited". I'm not sure how much
progress we can make on this without Glenn.
... Otherwise I've made progress resolving the issues online.
Thanks for reviewing.
nigel: Thanks for making the fixes!
pal: The other issue is if we
need an algorithm for discovering the IMSC profile.
... https://github.com/w3c/imsc/issues/111
... I was wondering if there are further thoughts on that, and
the definition of prohibited are the two outstanding
issues.
... Maybe we need to continue that offline since Glenn is not
on the call.
... https://github.com/w3c/imsc/issues/114
atai2: I'm just wondering if we
covered this in Sapporo. I thought we captured the case if no
profile is available.
... I wasn't aware that there's a problem.
pal: That's an important point -
it was the topic of a lengthy discussion with Glenn in the room
and I think we arrived at language with
... consensus. I'm not ready to change that language unless
there's consensus for a change.
nigel: I do think there may be an issue around the words "successful processing" which we could define as excluding ignoring any semantics.
pal: My inclination is not to change it given the time we've spent on it already.
atai2: I agree with Pierre. We
spent a lot of time on it and went through a lot of different
options. There should be a concrete alternative proposal
... if someone wants to change the spec.
nigel: Sorry I think I was talking about the conformance issue rather than the profile issue.
atai2: Also there may be some external information available to determine the profile so that's out of scope of the specification to say which profile it is in this case.
nigel: Glenn has stated that he will raise a formal objection without such an algorithm in place to deduce the profile.
pal: My latest proposal to Glenn
is neutral in that it proposes that if a document cannot be
identified as one of the two profiles then it should
... be treated as a generic TTML document.
nigel: I think that seems fair.
<atai2> +1
nigel: We need Glenn's answer to your question on the issue.
pal: Seems reasonable to me to treat it as a generic TTML document if it can not be determined to be IMSC.
atai2: Same here.
<plh> plh: sounds good
nigel: Is it unreasonable to
state an algorithm for deducing which kind of IMSC document one
is given a starting point of 'it's some kind of IMSC'?
... Glenn did propose: "If no ttp:profile attribute is present,
then the text profile applies."
pal: I don't think anyone would use that. I think that there's no practical generic algorithm because different circumstances apply.
atai2: I had the same thought as
Pierre at first. If you really want to find out which profile
it is I would search for image profile specific content
elements (as Pierre just mentioned)
... as they are only allowed in the image profile and not in
the text profile.
nigel: Likewise you could search for a span
pal: Exactly.
nigel: The desire is to look at something at the top of the document rather than an in depth search.
pal: That's right, which is the
purpose of ttp:profile and ebuttm:conformsToStandard.
... There's a document called substantive changes summary,
under spec, which is a list of substantive changes. My plan is
to prepare a list
... of substantive changes to it, which we can do next week or
beforehand offline.
nigel: It could be a good idea to put the changes into a wiki page for offline discussion.
pal: Or we could just add issues
to indicate which they think are substantive.
... I've looked at all the commits and collected them
together.
nigel: I guess we could label each issue.
pal: That would be smart. I think
on past reviews the text document is still expected, so that
will be the canonical source.
... I plan to have that document ready for next week.
... I'll set up some time with you Nigel to review the list
early next week.
nigel: Okay, great.
pal: [has to leave.] Bye
plh: It turns out that TTML has
won an award. The email has been sitting in my spam for ages
but we never got the hard copy of the email.
... We're trying to figure out if we can get the original
authors of TTML 1.0 to the ceremony.
... [describes the history of how TTWG was set up]
... The WG was setup in 2003.
... It took me a long time to reconstruct this history!
... We're inviting people but we
... won't be able to cover the cost of the event itself.
... Expect to get more news from us ASAP on that front.
nigel: Wow! Well that's great news.
tmichel: I don't know exactly what this award is - is it for W3C for designing the language? Is it the first language in W3C to be rewarded?
<plh> http://emmyonline.com/tech_67th_recipients
plh: It came out of the blue! We
were not expecting it.
... I can't tell you if we ever got an award for HTML. We do
believe it's the first Emmy award we've received. We don't
expect to get television awards.
nigel: Have you managed to check with Mike Dolan and David Ronca on why SMPTE and Netflix are also listed?
plh: I haven't yet. I was hoping they'd be here today.
tmichel: So the award is shared between all 5 organisations?
plh: Yes. I think each will get a
statue but I'm not 100% sure.
... If you're interested in finding more about it you could
look at last year's ceremony in which JPEG2000 got an
award.
... David Kirby will be in our thoughts. He commented on
Thierry's draft charter, and was involved from the very early
days. Goeff Freed took the lead in very very early days out of WAI PF.
... We need Glenn too of course. [...]
nigel: Of course the first Rec was in 2010, so there was a lot of work over a long time.
plh: In early 2008 I came in and
decided not to use SMIL text but TTML, and drafted a new
charter to restart the WG.
... Then we had some discussions over scope that delayed the
Rec (dynamic flow!).
... The spec is dedicated to David Kirby, which was proposed by
Sean Hayes. It was the way it turned out that on November 15th
I sent the
... email to the Directors asking for Rec status and on
November 16th we received the news from BBC that David has
passed. Then Sean
... asked for the dedication and on Nov 18th we published with the REC with
the dedication present. It happened within 3 days.
... The whole issue with HTML surfaced in 2009 and that
triggered the discussion about SRT and TTML that led to
WebVTT.
nigel: This is a really
interesting story - I'd like to see a written down
version.
... Sorry to be a boring chair but are there any actions around
this right now?
plh: Not right now, but expect to receive an email from us.
http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/REC-ttaf1-dfxp-20101118/
plh: We have to send that back tomorrow so we're turning it around pretty fast.
tmichel: The question that comes
to my mind is: what is this going to bring to W3C or TTML?
First, is W3C going to be granted some
... money for more research?
plh: No.
tmichel: And secondly, does this push the language to be implemented more? Would that help? Like getting an award at Cannes helps to promote the movie?
plh: I don't know to be honest.
This has come from the television industry. Mike Dolan would
know more than I do on this front about what
... it means for the impact on the television industry. I don't
think it will necessarily make a difference to browser
makers.
... If it helps TTML in the adoption of the TV industry - I
know it's been adopted by SMPTE, EBU, DECE, DVB, HbbTV 2.0.
<atai2> +q
nigel: There's a whole list of adopters out there.
plh: The one thing you'd be able to say at least is "Emmy award winner: TTML"! :)
atai2: That's great to hear, so congratulations. Really impressive. I have some comments on the TTML WebVTT mapping document if there's still time.
nigel: I just want to check that there are no queries or comments on the proposal to adopt the 2015 process?
tmichel: I just wanted to add a
small issue about publishing a new CR version as we know that
we are going to publish a CR of IMSC but we
... also know that we have more comments coming in and we will
need another publication of a CR after that. Somebody asked me
if we should
... wait or publish now. I think plh's view is we should wait
and collect everything for a CR, implement as much as possible
and target just
... one snapshot instead of more iterations.
plh: My common view is publish as often as you can, but you have to balance that with the effort needed and the detail level.
atai2: I think given the time we should postpone that until next week, especially as Simon has left the IRC.
nigel: Apologies for cutting off
two conversations. But that's okay because we're at the end of
our meeting time.
... It's been an unusual meeting - thanks very much. Next week
we have the last meeting of the year. We should have a
resolution on
... adopting the 2015 process and agreement on which IMSC
changes are substantive, so it should be a good one.
plh: Congratulations to the group [for the award].
nigel: Thanks very much everyone [adjourns meeting]