15:00:13 RRSAgent has joined #tt 15:00:13 logging to http://www.w3.org/2015/12/17-tt-irc 15:00:15 RRSAgent, make logs public 15:00:15 Zakim has joined #tt 15:00:17 Zakim, this will be TTML 15:00:17 I do not see a conference matching that name scheduled within the next hour, trackbot 15:00:18 Meeting: Timed Text Working Group Teleconference 15:00:18 Date: 17 December 2015 15:03:04 Present+ nigel, andreas, pierre 15:03:07 chair: nigel 15:03:10 scribe: nigel 15:03:38 atai2 has joined #tt 15:05:28 David has joined #tt 15:06:35 Having problems logging in 15:07:05 Still working on in 15:07:57 Topic: This Meeting 15:08:30 nigel: I think for today we have IMSC substantive changes to review. 15:08:40 pal: Yes, I've updated the summary of substantive changes on the repo. 15:08:59 atai2: I want to give some info on the mapping document too. 15:09:02 nigel: Ok! 15:09:09 pal: Let's start with that then. 15:09:34 nigel: I think we can close off the 2015 process issue too. 15:09:39 Present+ tmichel 15:10:04 nigel: We also have the IMSC implementation report, and proposed new tests 15:10:16 nigel: AOB? 15:10:34 pal: I'd like to go over a bunch of pull requests and see if we can accept them - they're minor but they've only been out for a week. 15:10:57 Topic: Action Items 15:11:07 nigel: There's only one to cover that I'm aware of 15:11:10 action-451? 15:11:10 action-451 -- Thierry Michel to Investigate if we are required to move to the 2015 process -- due 2015-12-03 -- PENDINGREVIEW 15:11:10 http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/tracker/actions/451 15:12:16 nigel: I sent the call for consensus out on Friday 4th December so the 2 week period for review ends tomorrow. So far there have been no objections or negative comments of any kind. 15:13:29 Topic: TTML and WebVTT Mapping Document 15:13:43 atai2: I think there are minor edits and pull requests to correct some errors. 15:13:49 ... We don't need to discuss them now. 15:14:10 plehegar__ has joined #tt 15:14:19 atai2: I had a call last week with Loretta to discuss how to proceed. I also talked to Simon about it in Sapporo. There was at least one 15:14:36 ... problem at that time - we did the mapping according to the specs, but of course in real operation there is no complete implementation 15:14:49 present+ plh 15:14:53 ... and there are interoperability issues where different browsers implement different features, so those features aren't safe to use. 15:15:19 ... The other thing is that there are substantive changes that Simon has made to the WebVTT spec. 15:15:52 ... On the first point we did not come to a conclusion. One approach is to check what is really supported and indicate in the spec 15:16:10 ... what mapping is desirable vs what might be practically needed to make it work. Loretta made the point that we should base the mapping 15:16:30 ... on the specs not the implementations. Overall what we agreed is to try to fix errors, and make some examples, and start from there. 15:17:01 ... That's the most obvious and fruitful work for the mapping document, then we have to see how WebVTT goes towards Rec to know what 15:17:06 ... features we can really count on. 15:17:16 q+ for a side comment 15:17:25 ack 15:17:35 zakim, ack 15:17:35 I don't understand 'ack', nigel 15:17:42 ack plehegar__ 15:17:42 plehegar__, you wanted to discuss a side comment 15:18:02 pal has joined #tt 15:18:20 plehegar__: I've missed out on what Loretta's github user is, so I can add her to the repo. 15:18:26 atai2: It should be there. 15:19:17 Present+ dronca 15:20:07 nigel: That seems like a good way forward, and good to know you're working on it with Loretta. 15:21:10 Topic: IMSC Substantive Changes 15:21:28 https://github.com/w3c/imsc/blob/master/spec/substantive-changes-summary.txt 15:21:29 pal: Nigel and I have gone through the changes and categorised them. There are some substantive changes. 15:22:20 nigel: So those are the substantive changes, and also there are a bunch that are not substantive. 15:22:23 pal: That's correct. 15:23:34 nigel: Do we have a Director's call booked to go through the substantive changes, as needed to transition from CR to CR? 15:23:58 plh: We will care about what wide review there was on those changes. The Director needs to be reassured that either the changes do not 15:24:35 ... affect the wide review or have been reviewed. If it's straightforward then I can sit down with Ralph and go through them. 15:25:53 nigel: We have not sought wide review on any of the changes - they have all come from group member comments. However I would 15:26:26 ... say that although they are substantive they are all clarifications that make the spec say what it meant before, or looked like it meant. 15:26:30 pal: I'd agree with that. 15:26:39 plh: Tell me more about issue-79 15:27:14 pal: There are two ways to indicate profile in TTML and it was unclear before. Following discussions we decided to omit the ttp:profile element. 15:27:59 ... There is no formal profile document for IMSC 1 and there were identified limitations to the profile element. To make it clear we have now 15:28:15 ... prohibited the element and encouraged use of the attribute. 15:28:26 plh: Can I say that SMPTE and EBU are happy with the change? 15:28:56 atai2: For example, EBU-TT-D, which is a subset of IMSC, also prohibits the ttp:element and the ttp:attribute. If they were required in the 15:29:14 ... document then it would be impossible to make EBU-TT-D a subset of IMSC, so EBU is fine with this. 15:29:37 plh: In that case my recommendation is we don't do a Director's call, and I arrange it with the Director. I don't think we can publish 15:29:49 ... before the moratorium. Unless you want to be around I can get the approval to publish. 15:29:53 nigel: Sounds good to me! 15:30:16 plh: I'm going to request approval tomorrow afternoon, so you can prepare the document for publication. 15:30:48 pal: Excellent. Nigel mentioned that there's 1 issue here, which is on the 2015 process adoption. Nigel issued a call for consensus for that 15:30:59 ... which ends tomorrow, so by tomorrow afternoon you'll have a clean document. 15:31:19 plh: In general we allow 7 days between the publication request and the publication. Tomorrow we will get the okay to publish. 15:31:40 pal: Okay, then the other thing is to go through the open pull requests and since we have a quorum make a decision on them. 15:32:25 nigel: Just to confirm, we're not changing the CR exit criteria, and the earliest date will be the minimum after publication. 15:32:31 plh: That's 4 weeks. 15:32:49 ... You'll also trigger a 60 day call for exclusion due to the substantive changes. 15:33:07 nigel: That doesn't need a document change does it? 15:33:12 plh: Correct, it just happens. 15:33:32 Topic: IMSC Pull Requests 15:33:52 pal: PR #106 changes the old process reference to the new one. 15:33:55 https://github.com/w3c/imsc/pull/106 15:34:33 nigel: A tool for IRC to generate github links would be nice! 15:34:53 plh: We can ask Santa Clause! Actually the gitter tool integrates chat with git nicely. 15:35:14 nigel: Everyone's happy with that, what's next? 15:35:21 pal: PR #110 15:35:21 https://github.com/w3c/imsc/pull/119 15:35:27 s/110/119 15:35:37 pal: This is for issue 110. 15:35:56 pal: This reminds the user that only cell units can be used for line padding. 15:36:06 nigel: That's editorial. 15:36:14 pal: Yes, and factual. 15:36:19 atai2: It's a good important note. 15:36:38 https://github.com/w3c/imsc/pull/120. 15:36:39 pal: I'll merge those later. Next is #120 15:37:33 pal: This one clarifies which of #backgroundColor-inline and -block and -region are permitted in the image profile, since they're used as fallback in SMPTE-TT. 15:37:56 ... That change falls in the general category of clarifying feature tables and making everything explicit. 15:38:15 ... They were not forbidden before but now it is explicit that they are permitted. (block and region) 15:38:37 ... -inline is prohibited because there's no inline content. It was before, but now it's absolutely explicit. 15:38:45 zcorpan has joined #tt 15:38:53 ... The next one is on the same lines. #121 15:39:00 https://github.com/w3c/imsc/pull/121 15:40:10 pal: span was prohibited in image profile, so nested-span, which was implicitly prohibited is now noted as being prohibited. That's purely editorial. 15:40:39 https://github.com/w3c/imsc/pull/122 15:40:40 pal: Next is #122 15:41:18 ... This resolves a number of related issues, all to do with TTML1 features being derived from other features - if one is prohibited then the 15:41:47 ... parent feature has no single disposition. This pull request clarifies that. 15:42:05 ... It does so by pointing the reader to the relevant children features that the reader ought to look at. 15:42:43 ... For example #visibility -> (#visibility-region, #visibility-block etc). Some are prohibited, others forbidden. 15:43:06 ... This is essentially just an editorial change. 15:43:35 pal: Next one is more substantive: #123 15:43:38 https://github.com/w3c/imsc/pull/123 15:44:10 pal: I've followed up with CFF-TT folks on this. The current text limits the number of presented images per region to 1, which has been clear 15:44:33 ... for a long time. However what it did not say is that the number of div elements per presented region ought also to be 1. It would be possible 15:44:57 ... to create a document with 2 divs in a presented region, only one being a presented image. One of the div elements would be empty, 15:45:18 ... and could have a background colour, but that wasn't intended. Glenn pointed out that you could have 2 divs both with an image, but one 15:45:38 ... not presented because it falls outside the region. The proposal here is to clarify the text that there can only be one div element per 15:45:43 ... presented region in image profile. 15:46:16 ... This clarifies the intent. I don't know why anyone would have created more than 1 div per region, but now they clearly cannot. 15:46:23 nigel: And it's had review? 15:46:52 pal: It was not clear in CFF-TT and when I followed up with folks there everyone agreed with this intent and nobody could think of a reason 15:46:56 ... to do anything differently. 15:47:16 nigel: Any more? 15:47:20 pal: Those are all of them. 15:47:26 nigel: Okay, so everyone seems to be happy with all of those. 15:47:48 pal: I'll merge those all and create a CR3 version and send an email to the reflector with the proposed CR3 document. 15:47:54 nigel: Fantastic, thank you. 15:48:00 pal: Thank you all - I think the document is a lot clearer. 15:49:56 nigel: Just looking at the outstanding issues, there are some unresolved ones, one of which is associated with a formal objection 15:50:34 ... that, since we have been unable to reach a consensus, I propose we take forward to the Director. This is an objection to transition to a new CR. 15:51:07 plh: This is a different thing now - we will need a Director's call after all. Is the spec ready for CR3? 15:51:23 pal: This is issue 111. https://github.com/w3c/imsc/issues/111 15:51:35 objection is: 15:51:38 Unless and until a fallback profile is mandated normatively in IMSC1, SKYNAV formally objects to any new CR being published. 15:51:44 pal: There is not even consensus that the issue is a real issue. That's fundamental. 15:52:13 pal: There's also consensus that Glenn's proposed solution does not work. And thirdly despite much effort online and offline there has been 15:52:33 ... no consensus to a solution to the problem. Fourthly, there are no other strong objections to the current text. 15:52:55 plh: Translating, the group has not yet made a clear decision but believes that this should not prevent update of the specification with the 15:53:16 ... issue remaining open within the working group. Is that an appropriate summary? 15:53:34 nigel: Yes, I think that is an appropriate summary. 15:53:58 plh: At some point the group will have to take a position, whether to accept or reject Glenn's position. I need a decision from the group. 15:54:40 plh: Either you close the issue or keep it open and decide not make it a blocker to CR. 15:55:46 nigel: I think it was my proposal at the beginning to do the latter. 15:55:53 plh: It needs to be a decision not a proposal. 15:56:33 nigel: Okay, I'm formally proposing to move to CR3 without closing issue 111. Any objections to that? 15:57:45 tmichel: The only thing I can see here is that we may need a further CR. 15:58:16 nigel: We're caught here because the process has changed under our feet - we would be auto publishing a WD if we were still in WD. 15:58:32 plh: You can return to WD - I don't think it would worsen the outlook. 15:58:50 pal: I think we should record that for issue 111 the group chooses to proceed with the current text with Glenn as the sole objector. 15:59:33 nigel: So right now we have no objections to my proposal, so I'm going to record it as a decision. 15:59:43 tmichel: I think this is better than going back to WD which would send a wrong signal. 16:00:06 pal: I think the group has been responsive to every comment and has processed all comments and proposed resolutions sometimes with substantive changes. 16:00:17 ... In this case the consensus is there may not be a problem and the solution proposed is not acceptable. 16:00:39 plh: In order to update CR the process does not require you to address all issues. That would apply to PR though. 16:00:46 pal: And the resolution can be to dispose of the issue. 16:00:50 plh: That's correct. 16:01:48 nigel: For the minutes, we have decided to proceed with the request to transition to CR3 with issue 111 remaining open, despite the formal objection. 16:02:05 nigel: This will be resolved before we move to PR. 16:02:11 plh: Then we may need a Director's call. 16:02:39 ... We will need to know more about #111 precisely. I can try to represent it. I recommend that we have a Director's call. 16:03:14 nigel: Can we schedule that? 16:03:49 plh: Today, afternoon between 1pm and 4:30pm is open, or tomorrow 3-4pm Eastern. Otherwise next week, could be Monday afternoon. 16:05:27 nigel: Of those choices I would prefer 3pm tomorrow, being 8pm UTC. 16:05:50 tmichel: I'll try to be there but not 100%. I don't want to be on the critical path. 16:06:08 pal: Tomorrow at noon (pacific) is fine for me. 16:06:23 plh: Alright, so I'll send a confirmation email with call information, after the transition request. 16:06:36 tmichel: Is there other stuff we need to prepare? We have the list of substantive changes... 16:06:54 plh: Actually, looking at the list of substantive changes, which should I use, the latest set? 16:07:11 pal: In the next couple of hours I will prepare a CR3 and point to the specific list of changes that need to be presented. 16:07:45 plh: I'm only interested in the changes since CR2. 16:07:55 pal: That's the latest list, but one pull request from this morning will need to be added. 16:08:15 plh: Fine by me, I'll add that to the issues list and note issue 111. 16:08:30 ... We have to talk about it since there is a formal objection. 16:09:14 plh: I expect this to take 30 minutes at most tomorrow. I assume it will be Ralph Swick who is Director, otherwise I will need to sync with timbl's calendar. Hopefully we can keep it simple. 16:09:32 plh: Okay, thank you. 16:10:14 nigel: Thanks everyone, whatever you do over the holiday period, enjoy it! [adjourns meeting] 16:10:19 rrsagent, make minutes 16:10:19 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2015/12/17-tt-minutes.html nigel 16:22:48 s/Having problems logging in/ 16:22:58 s/Still working on in/ 16:24:18 i/Topic: IMSC Substantive/plh and atai liaise re getting Loretta added to the github repo for the mapping document 16:29:15 fwtnb has joined #tt 16:29:28 rrsagent, make minutes 16:29:28 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2015/12/17-tt-minutes.html nigel 16:31:07 ScribeOptions: -final -noEmbedDiagnostics 16:31:08 rrsagent, make minutes 16:31:08 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2015/12/17-tt-minutes.html nigel 16:37:00 nigel has joined #tt 17:30:49 Zakim has left #tt