14:59:30 RRSAgent has joined #tt 14:59:30 logging to http://www.w3.org/2016/01/28-tt-irc 14:59:32 RRSAgent, make logs public 14:59:32 Zakim has joined #tt 14:59:34 Zakim, this will be TTML 14:59:34 I do not see a conference matching that name scheduled within the next hour, trackbot 14:59:35 Meeting: Timed Text Working Group Teleconference 14:59:35 Date: 28 January 2016 14:59:49 I will be a few minutres late ... 15:01:32 Present: nigel 15:02:08 Present+ andreas 15:02:49 chair: nigel 15:02:59 scribe: nigel 15:03:04 Present+ pierre 15:03:46 Present+ shinjan, glenn 15:04:04 Topic: This Meeting 15:04:13 Regrets: frans 15:04:44 mike has joined #tt 15:05:29 Nigel, my W3C credentials do not work for the member page with the new meeting coordinates... 15:05:37 nigel: [Goes through likely topics for meeting]: Actions, IMSC 1 issues, TTML2, possibly profiles 15:05:54 thx 15:06:52 nigel: Any specific topics to cover, or AOB? 15:07:03 pal: IMSC 1 issues please 15:07:05 nigel: Yes 15:07:26 glenn: I'd like to discuss commit policy on github 15:07:29 nigel: Okay 15:07:39 Present+ tmichel 15:08:02 Topic: Action Items 15:08:12 action-453? 15:08:12 action-453 -- Thierry Michel to Schedule between tmichel and philippe the transition to cr3 with any director call as needed. -- due 2016-01-21 -- PENDINGREVIEW 15:08:12 http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/tracker/actions/453 15:08:48 tmichel: IMSC 1 CR3 is published and has been announced to AC and Chairs, and triggered a 2 month patent exclusion 15:09:31 close action-453 15:09:31 Closed action-453. 15:09:39 Present+ dae 15:09:44 dae has joined #tt 15:10:01 tmichel: I had to extend the CR exit point to Feb 28 because we moved the publication back by 2 days. 15:10:04 nigel: Thanks 15:10:13 pal: I'll modify that on github too - Feb 28? 15:10:15 present+dae 15:10:16 tmichel: Feb 28 yes 15:10:51 nigel: Thanks everyone whose helped with publication of that CR. 15:10:55 action-454? 15:10:55 action-454 -- Philippe Le Hégaret to Create stub files to redirect from hg to github for ttml1 and ttml2 -- due 2016-01-28 -- PENDINGREVIEW 15:10:55 http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/tracker/actions/454 15:11:24 glenn: I noticed on the CR3 that a message was issued, a call for exclusions message. Is a call for exclusions a 15:11:39 ... multiple event or a single event? Normally in the past process a call for exclusions only occurred on the first CR 15:11:47 ... but not subsequent CRs. Has that changed? 15:12:07 tmichel: It's actually the com team who does that. I don't remember - I need to check if we sent an exclusion for the 15:12:22 ... 2nd CR and will look into it and let you know. My interpretation is every CR publication triggers an exclusion 15:12:28 ... period of 2 months, but I will investigate. 15:13:00 tmichel: It makes sense because if you add functionality into the CR version then it may result in a patent exclusion. 15:13:03 glenn: I agree. 15:13:07 action-454? 15:13:08 action-454 -- Philippe Le Hégaret to Create stub files to redirect from hg to github for ttml1 and ttml2 -- due 2016-01-28 -- PENDINGREVIEW 15:13:08 http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/tracker/actions/454 15:14:32 nigel: Okay I guess we'll close this one. 15:14:35 close action-454 15:14:35 Closed action-454. 15:15:13 action-455? 15:15:13 action-455 -- Glenn Adams to Update ttml2 spec/readme to include config for keyword replacement. -- due 2016-01-28 -- OPEN 15:15:13 http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/tracker/actions/455 15:15:47 action-445? 15:15:47 action-445 -- Andreas Tai to Propose to mdolan this addition to the profile registry document. -- due 2015-11-06 -- OPEN 15:15:47 http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/tracker/actions/445 15:16:23 atai: I checked with Mike and will make a proposal for a new column for the profile registry table that shows where 15:16:40 ... the profile information can be found inside the TTML document instance for the corresponding TTML profile specification. 15:16:59 ... Some are for ttp:profile attribute, or element, or ebuttm:documentConformsToStandard element. 15:17:26 mike: Andreas and I exchanged a couple of emails and it makes sense to me. 15:17:43 ... I'm hopelessly behind on the profile document! 15:18:11 nigel: What can I do to help? 15:18:32 mike: The wiki is what I think we want to produce, in the text. It's more about putting it into a document template 15:18:41 ... and using the tools to publish it in W3C. 15:19:05 nigel: Thierry, would you be able to assist? 15:19:19 tmichel: Yes, I'd be happy to help turn the wiki text into a first version on github 15:20:04 action-429? 15:20:04 action-429 -- Mike Dolan to Draft a wg note for the profile short name registry and ttml media type registration -- due 2015-10-08 -- OPEN 15:20:04 http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/tracker/actions/429 15:20:31 action-429: [TTWG meeting 2016-01-28] tmichel to help this along with a first draft on github 15:20:31 Notes added to action-429 Draft a wg note for the profile short name registry and ttml media type registration. 15:20:58 close action-445 15:20:58 Closed action-445. 15:22:35 Topic: IMSC issues 15:23:01 dae has joined #tt 15:23:19 pal: I'd like to start with issue #127 15:23:59 https://github.com/w3c/imsc/issues/127 15:24:16 nigel: Extensibility goals not documented 15:24:32 pal: The discussion is whether or how IMSC 1 can have an opinion on IMSC 2 and how an IMSC 1 document will be 15:24:54 ... processed by an IMSC 2 processor and vice versa. Before we have started on IMSC 2 it is very difficult to have a 15:25:07 ... good opinion. I think we should have that discussion when we start on IMSC 2. 15:25:27 glenn: The issue here is whether we address this in IMSC 1 or wait. I'm insisting on addressing it in IMSC 1 and not 15:25:43 ... waiting. I agree that it needs a bit of thinking. We don't have to refer to IMSC 2, we can simply refer to future 15:26:03 ... versions. At least TTML2 talks about future and past versions. 15:26:17 ... In retrospect we should have given more thought to extensibility and at least documented our goals. I'm asking 15:26:39 ... for informative material that describes our goals. It would be a sad state of affairs if we cannot document our goals now. 15:26:58 pal: I don't think this is as dire as you just painted it. IMSC 1 already allows foreign vocabulary, which allows for 15:27:05 ... straightforward extensibility. 15:27:25 glenn: It may be sufficient to describe those goals, for example the goal of supporting vocabulary not in IMSC 1. 15:27:29 pal: That's §6.2 15:27:47 glenn: I'm asking for a specifically labelled section on goals, in an annex, the introduction or somewhere else. 15:28:10 pal: Okay. I don't really know how to write that section. I'd like to consider a concrete proposal. 15:28:23 glenn: I hope people already have goals in mind and could articulate them. 15:28:46 ... Foreign vocabulary is one goal. The same comments are going to apply with #126 on interoperability. 15:29:44 nigel: [opens up to group to offer options for extensibility] 15:29:59 glenn: Both forward and backward compatibility come into this category. I would hope that a goal is to be as 15:30:12 ... forward and backward compatible as possible, as a generic goal that applies to most of W3C development. 15:30:31 ... That doesn't mean it's not possible to create a breaking change in the future. If we think that such a breaking change 15:30:39 ... could occur then we could document it as a discussion point. 15:32:04 nigel: One of the points I think is probably implied is that the purpose of the profile exercise is that extensions from within TTML are excluded unless listed. 15:32:32 glenn: Since we don't list all the features there's an implication that unlisted features from TTML 1 are permissible in IMSC 1, yes? 15:32:33 pal has joined #tt 15:33:00 pal: We put a significant effort in to list all TTML 1 profile features. 15:33:16 glenn: Okay, so all features from TTML Annex D are listed as prohibited or permitted, yes? 15:33:26 pal: Yes, that was the goal, and I think we achieved it. 15:33:50 glenn: We could argue about if that's extensibility or interoperability, but it is possibly both, so we could discuss that under extensibility goals. 15:35:05 glenn: I suggest we open this up for comments over the next couple of weeks and that I will draft a proposal based on that. 15:35:11 nigel: Those comments should be on the github issue 15:35:20 pal: What are we askign people to do? 15:35:32 glenn: Give us opinions on what are and are not extensibility goals. 15:37:02 glenn: I haven't written down my own thoughts on this yet. I'm more struck by the absence of this topic than anything else. That was my point in filing the issue. 15:38:30 ... I'm prepared to draft something but can't articulate my own thinking on this right now. 15:40:10 nigel: I think we should be careful to understand if we need this or if we can build on something already in TTML1 15:40:15 ... by inheritance? 15:41:13 glenn: I don't think we have extensibility goals described in TTML1 15:41:27 ... which in retrospect we should have put in. 15:41:52 ... In TTML1 we used a QA guideline checklist. One of the points there was a set of good practices. Number 18 15:42:03 ... states that if extensibility is allowed define an extension mechanism. 15:42:54 ... I suggest we review what's in IMSC 1 and TTML 1 and go from there. 15:43:10 nigel: Okay so action on everyone to complete this research and record their goals in the issue. 15:43:19 glenn: Very much the same comments apply to the interoperability issue. 15:43:30 pal: What's the time box that we have on this? 15:43:39 glenn: I can respond by mid-Feb with some material. 15:43:57 nigel: Okay, that sounds like 2 weeks to note extensibility and interoperability goals in the github issues. 15:44:26 pal: How are we doing on #111 and #114? 15:44:51 glenn: I've got to draft some material based on a conversation I had with Nigel, where we think we may be able to resolve both of those. 15:44:59 ... Mid-Feb is reasonable for those too. 15:45:32 pal: #125 https://github.com/w3c/imsc/issues/125 Unable to normatively determine non-conformance when testing content constraints. 15:46:12 glenn: At present IMSC 1 specifies that if a document is not conformant then behaviour is undefined. Correct? 15:46:25 pal: Correct. The document does not specify a normative behaviour in the presence of a non-conformant document. 15:46:46 glenn: A couple of points: 1. Since all behaviour re non-conformance is unspecified then it is impossible to normatively 15:47:04 ... test non-conformance because any outcome is possible, from aborting to ignoring and anything in between. 15:47:26 ... I'm not happy with that state of affairs. Part 2, which I did make a proposal for, is to introduce the concept of a 15:47:46 ... validating processor and to allow for some normative behaviour in the face of non-conformance if and when the 15:48:01 q+ 15:48:10 ... IMSC processor is also a validating processor. So an IMSC transformation or validation processor that also supports 15:48:28 ... validation and it is enabled then it is possible to define some constraints on non-conformance. 15:48:32 ack atai 15:49:42 atai: I thought the conclusion here from previous meetings when we discussed this is that handling of non-conformant 15:49:47 q+ 15:50:05 ... files is out of spec and I agree with that. What Glenn wants to define is behaviour on encountering non-conformant documents. 15:50:20 ... I think that's out of scope of the spec. The topic came up before and from what I read of the minutes the conclusion 15:50:24 ... was out of scope. 15:50:27 ack pal 15:50:53 pal: That's my recollection, but it sounds like Glenn is proposing something a little narrower, only for validating processors. 15:51:09 ... So for those who choose to describe processors as validating then this is the behaviour. 15:51:26 glenn: That's right. I don't disagree with Andreas but I think we can do better than that at little or no cost to the specification. 15:51:47 ... For example the TTT toolset has a presentation engine in it. It performs validation processing as a precursor to 15:52:15 ... presentation. It's an existing implementation (also of a transformation processor) that does implement the optional 15:52:29 q+ 15:52:31 ... features of validation. So we can go further than saying it's completely out of scope and having normative 15:52:44 ... language that allows us to introduce defined behaviour. 15:53:12 pal: The particular thing here is that it's a class of processors described as validating processors. 15:53:43 glenn: Yes, TTML2 introduces these all formally along with some specific vocabulary for controlling it. I didn't want 15:53:56 ... to inject that into this proposal because that would be going too far, but I took the semantics of what we're 15:54:09 ... proposing and put them into a form that we could adopt in IMSC 1. 15:54:11 ack atai 15:54:34 atai: Thank you for the clarification. It is of course a different use case. I would like to see the concrete proposal. 15:55:03 ... There are of course existing possibilities to check conformance, for example using an XML schema. This already 15:55:21 ... has a defined behaviour for how to identify non-conformance. I'm not sure if we should also define behaviour for 15:55:25 ... QC processes of TTML. 15:55:35 glenn: Take a look at #125 because there is a proposed set of language there. 15:56:05 Topic: Commit policy on github 15:56:23 glenn: There are two kinds of policies that are commonly used in development - Review Then Commit, when a 15:56:48 ... consensus approval is obtained prior to a commit. Then there's Commit Then Review, which allows a 15:57:08 ... retroactive veto. In the history of this group all of the work on TTML1 and TTML2 in Mercurial and CVS was done 15:57:36 ... on a Commit Then Review (CTR) lazy consensus process. It was based on the editor to decide when to commit 15:57:54 ... and then notify the group and make sure that they had log info to give them a chance to review post facto and 15:58:15 ... object if necessary. Most teams follow a CTR process because it provides the least barriers to making changes. 15:58:44 ... It can result in more bugs potentially. My experience is I've worked with both kinds of processes. With github 15:59:02 ... which has a Pull Request mechanism it is possible to snapshot the changes and call them out for review. We 15:59:19 ... discussed and agreed the move to github in Sapporo and talked about the review process but I don't recall doing 15:59:37 ... so in depth. At the time I remember thinking it should be up to the Editor to decide how to use that facility. I never 15:59:58 ... anticipated changing from CTR to RTC. Recently both Nigel and Pierre have in the context of IMSC 1 been following 16:00:19 ... a RTC process in their thinking. I would object to that for TTML2. I might be willing to agree to it for other work. 16:00:38 ... I find it a strong barrier to process. For example right now I have 4 different issues that Pierre has delegated to me 16:01:11 ... to create PRs. All of those fixes are going to change the same lines of code. 16:01:25 pal: I think there's a misunderstanding - you can create a PR that covers multiple issues, and we've done that in the 16:01:28 ... past. 16:01:36 glenn: I agree that's possible. 16:02:38 nigel: github also provides a tool for merging work in other branches to resolve the clashes. 16:02:53 glenn: I agree there are tools there but it's much more awkward and difficult to do that. My basic point is that 16:03:04 q+ 16:03:12 ... we don't have a firm consensus on CTR or RTC as a policy. Secondly even if we are using RTC on e.g. IMSC 1 I don't 16:03:29 ... think it should be a blanket policy but up to the Editor to decide what policy to use. For trivial changes there's 16:03:38 ... no reason to follow the more time consuming process. 16:03:51 ack atai 16:04:12 atai: I think we should check again what we discussed at TPAC. I think we explicitly had some discussion about the 16:04:22 ... new policy with github and I thought we agreed but I'm not sure. 16:06:01 nigel: We did discuss this in Sapporo and I'm pretty sure we did agree that. For WDs we always followed a RTC process 16:06:45 ... and said that to reduce the time between ED updates and WD publications and to use the automated WD publication 16:07:10 ... tool we would use PRs. 16:08:19 glenn: I do recall saying that I wouldn't be happy to adopt this for TTML2. 16:10:12 nigel: I'm happy to review the notes on this and return to it as a topic. In the meantime I would also like plh's views 16:11:13 ... and I would myself strongly recommend that we use pull requests for everything including TTML2. 16:11:42 glenn: I don't mind using pull requests but I object to a 2 week period before a merge is permitted. 16:12:22 ... I think it should be up to the Editor or possibly the Chair to decide to merge if a change is non controversial and 16:12:30 ... not to impose a 2 week delay on all PRs. 16:13:41 nigel: That's coincident with what we said in Sapporo. There may a middle ground there that is actually acceptable. 16:15:11 s/may a/may be a/ 16:17:30 glenn and pal: [re discussion without conclusion on who should be allowed to merge pull requesst] 16:17:58 nigel: We're out of time now so I'll adjourn. An hour again, same time next week. Thanks everyone [adjourns meeting] 16:18:03 rrsagent, generate minutes 16:18:03 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/01/28-tt-minutes.html nigel 16:18:51 s/thx/ 16:20:42 a/action-454?// 16:20:52 s/action-454 -- Philippe Le Hégaret to Create stub files to redirect from hg to github for ttml1 and ttml2 -- due 2016-01-28 -- PENDINGREVIEW// 16:21:05 s|http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/tracker/actions/454|| 16:21:13 rrsagent, generate minutes 16:21:13 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/01/28-tt-minutes.html nigel 16:24:51 s/askign/asking/ 16:28:13 a/... new policy/atai: new policy/ 16:28:18 rrsagent, generate minutes 16:28:18 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/01/28-tt-minutes.html nigel 16:29:21 s/re discussion/discussion/ 16:29:23 rrsagent, generate minutes 16:29:23 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/01/28-tt-minutes.html nigel 16:29:38 s|a/action-454?//|| 16:29:39 rrsagent, generate minutes 16:29:39 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/01/28-tt-minutes.html nigel 16:31:14 s|a/... new policy/atai: new policy/|| 16:31:24 s/... new policy/atai: new policy/ 16:31:27 rrsagent, generate minutes 16:31:27 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/01/28-tt-minutes.html nigel 16:31:56 s/requesst/requests/ 16:31:57 rrsagent, generate minutes 16:31:57 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/01/28-tt-minutes.html nigel 16:32:31 s/Nigel, my W3C credentials do not work for the member page with the new meeting coordinates...// 16:32:34 rrsagent, generate minutes 16:32:34 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/01/28-tt-minutes.html nigel 16:33:05 ScribeOptions: -final -noEmbedDiagnostics 16:33:06 rrsagent, generate minutes 16:33:06 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/01/28-tt-minutes.html nigel 17:07:30 atai has left #tt 18:15:15 Zakim has left #tt