IRC log of tt on 2016-01-28

Timestamps are in UTC.

14:59:30 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #tt
14:59:30 [RRSAgent]
logging to
14:59:32 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs public
14:59:32 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #tt
14:59:34 [trackbot]
Zakim, this will be TTML
14:59:34 [Zakim]
I do not see a conference matching that name scheduled within the next hour, trackbot
14:59:35 [trackbot]
Meeting: Timed Text Working Group Teleconference
14:59:35 [trackbot]
Date: 28 January 2016
14:59:49 [tmichel]
I will be a few minutres late ...
15:01:32 [nigel]
Present: nigel
15:02:08 [nigel]
Present+ andreas
15:02:49 [nigel]
chair: nigel
15:02:59 [nigel]
scribe: nigel
15:03:04 [nigel]
Present+ pierre
15:03:46 [nigel]
Present+ shinjan, glenn
15:04:04 [nigel]
Topic: This Meeting
15:04:13 [nigel]
Regrets: frans
15:04:44 [mike]
mike has joined #tt
15:05:29 [mike]
Nigel, my W3C credentials do not work for the member page with the new meeting coordinates...
15:05:37 [nigel]
nigel: [Goes through likely topics for meeting]: Actions, IMSC 1 issues, TTML2, possibly profiles
15:05:54 [mike]
15:06:52 [nigel]
nigel: Any specific topics to cover, or AOB?
15:07:03 [nigel]
pal: IMSC 1 issues please
15:07:05 [nigel]
nigel: Yes
15:07:26 [nigel]
glenn: I'd like to discuss commit policy on github
15:07:29 [nigel]
nigel: Okay
15:07:39 [nigel]
Present+ tmichel
15:08:02 [nigel]
Topic: Action Items
15:08:12 [nigel]
15:08:12 [trackbot]
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 [trackbot]
15:08:48 [nigel]
tmichel: IMSC 1 CR3 is published and has been announced to AC and Chairs, and triggered a 2 month patent exclusion
15:09:31 [nigel]
close action-453
15:09:31 [trackbot]
Closed action-453.
15:09:39 [nigel]
Present+ dae
15:09:44 [dae]
dae has joined #tt
15:10:01 [nigel]
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]
nigel: Thanks
15:10:13 [nigel]
pal: I'll modify that on github too - Feb 28?
15:10:15 [dae]
15:10:16 [nigel]
tmichel: Feb 28 yes
15:10:51 [nigel]
nigel: Thanks everyone whose helped with publication of that CR.
15:10:55 [nigel]
15:10:55 [trackbot]
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 [trackbot]
15:11:24 [nigel]
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 [nigel]
... multiple event or a single event? Normally in the past process a call for exclusions only occurred on the first CR
15:11:47 [nigel]
... but not subsequent CRs. Has that changed?
15:12:07 [nigel]
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 [nigel]
... 2nd CR and will look into it and let you know. My interpretation is every CR publication triggers an exclusion
15:12:28 [nigel]
... period of 2 months, but I will investigate.
15:13:00 [nigel]
tmichel: It makes sense because if you add functionality into the CR version then it may result in a patent exclusion.
15:13:03 [nigel]
glenn: I agree.
15:13:07 [nigel]
15:13:08 [trackbot]
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 [trackbot]
15:14:32 [nigel]
nigel: Okay I guess we'll close this one.
15:14:35 [nigel]
close action-454
15:14:35 [trackbot]
Closed action-454.
15:15:13 [nigel]
15:15:13 [trackbot]
action-455 -- Glenn Adams to Update ttml2 spec/readme to include config for keyword replacement. -- due 2016-01-28 -- OPEN
15:15:13 [trackbot]
15:15:47 [nigel]
15:15:47 [trackbot]
action-445 -- Andreas Tai to Propose to mdolan this addition to the profile registry document. -- due 2015-11-06 -- OPEN
15:15:47 [trackbot]
15:16:23 [nigel]
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 [nigel]
... the profile information can be found inside the TTML document instance for the corresponding TTML profile specification.
15:16:59 [nigel]
... Some are for ttp:profile attribute, or element, or ebuttm:documentConformsToStandard element.
15:17:26 [nigel]
mike: Andreas and I exchanged a couple of emails and it makes sense to me.
15:17:43 [nigel]
... I'm hopelessly behind on the profile document!
15:18:11 [nigel]
nigel: What can I do to help?
15:18:32 [nigel]
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 [nigel]
... and using the tools to publish it in W3C.
15:19:05 [nigel]
nigel: Thierry, would you be able to assist?
15:19:19 [nigel]
tmichel: Yes, I'd be happy to help turn the wiki text into a first version on github
15:20:04 [nigel]
15:20:04 [trackbot]
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 [trackbot]
15:20:31 [nigel]
action-429: [TTWG meeting 2016-01-28] tmichel to help this along with a first draft on github
15:20:31 [trackbot]
Notes added to action-429 Draft a wg note for the profile short name registry and ttml media type registration.
15:20:58 [nigel]
close action-445
15:20:58 [trackbot]
Closed action-445.
15:22:35 [nigel]
Topic: IMSC issues
15:23:01 [dae]
dae has joined #tt
15:23:19 [nigel]
pal: I'd like to start with issue #127
15:23:59 [nigel]
15:24:16 [nigel]
nigel: Extensibility goals not documented
15:24:32 [nigel]
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 [nigel]
... 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 [nigel]
... good opinion. I think we should have that discussion when we start on IMSC 2.
15:25:27 [nigel]
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 [nigel]
... 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 [nigel]
... versions. At least TTML2 talks about future and past versions.
15:26:17 [nigel]
... In retrospect we should have given more thought to extensibility and at least documented our goals. I'm asking
15:26:39 [nigel]
... 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 [nigel]
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 [nigel]
... straightforward extensibility.
15:27:25 [nigel]
glenn: It may be sufficient to describe those goals, for example the goal of supporting vocabulary not in IMSC 1.
15:27:29 [nigel]
pal: That's §6.2
15:27:47 [nigel]
glenn: I'm asking for a specifically labelled section on goals, in an annex, the introduction or somewhere else.
15:28:10 [nigel]
pal: Okay. I don't really know how to write that section. I'd like to consider a concrete proposal.
15:28:23 [nigel]
glenn: I hope people already have goals in mind and could articulate them.
15:28:46 [nigel]
... Foreign vocabulary is one goal. The same comments are going to apply with #126 on interoperability.
15:29:44 [nigel]
nigel: [opens up to group to offer options for extensibility]
15:29:59 [nigel]
glenn: Both forward and backward compatibility come into this category. I would hope that a goal is to be as
15:30:12 [nigel]
... forward and backward compatible as possible, as a generic goal that applies to most of W3C development.
15:30:31 [nigel]
... 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 [nigel]
... could occur then we could document it as a discussion point.
15:32:04 [nigel]
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 [nigel]
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]
pal has joined #tt
15:33:00 [nigel]
pal: We put a significant effort in to list all TTML 1 profile features.
15:33:16 [nigel]
glenn: Okay, so all features from TTML Annex D are listed as prohibited or permitted, yes?
15:33:26 [nigel]
pal: Yes, that was the goal, and I think we achieved it.
15:33:50 [nigel]
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 [nigel]
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]
nigel: Those comments should be on the github issue
15:35:20 [nigel]
pal: What are we askign people to do?
15:35:32 [nigel]
glenn: Give us opinions on what are and are not extensibility goals.
15:37:02 [nigel]
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 [nigel]
... I'm prepared to draft something but can't articulate my own thinking on this right now.
15:40:10 [nigel]
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 [nigel]
... by inheritance?
15:41:13 [nigel]
glenn: I don't think we have extensibility goals described in TTML1
15:41:27 [nigel]
... which in retrospect we should have put in.
15:41:52 [nigel]
... In TTML1 we used a QA guideline checklist. One of the points there was a set of good practices. Number 18
15:42:03 [nigel]
... states that if extensibility is allowed define an extension mechanism.
15:42:54 [nigel]
... I suggest we review what's in IMSC 1 and TTML 1 and go from there.
15:43:10 [nigel]
nigel: Okay so action on everyone to complete this research and record their goals in the issue.
15:43:19 [nigel]
glenn: Very much the same comments apply to the interoperability issue.
15:43:30 [nigel]
pal: What's the time box that we have on this?
15:43:39 [nigel]
glenn: I can respond by mid-Feb with some material.
15:43:57 [nigel]
nigel: Okay, that sounds like 2 weeks to note extensibility and interoperability goals in the github issues.
15:44:26 [nigel]
pal: How are we doing on #111 and #114?
15:44:51 [nigel]
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 [nigel]
... Mid-Feb is reasonable for those too.
15:45:32 [nigel]
pal: #125 Unable to normatively determine non-conformance when testing content constraints.
15:46:12 [nigel]
glenn: At present IMSC 1 specifies that if a document is not conformant then behaviour is undefined. Correct?
15:46:25 [nigel]
pal: Correct. The document does not specify a normative behaviour in the presence of a non-conformant document.
15:46:46 [nigel]
glenn: A couple of points: 1. Since all behaviour re non-conformance is unspecified then it is impossible to normatively
15:47:04 [nigel]
... test non-conformance because any outcome is possible, from aborting to ignoring and anything in between.
15:47:26 [nigel]
... 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 [nigel]
... validating processor and to allow for some normative behaviour in the face of non-conformance if and when the
15:48:01 [atai]
15:48:10 [nigel]
... IMSC processor is also a validating processor. So an IMSC transformation or validation processor that also supports
15:48:28 [nigel]
... validation and it is enabled then it is possible to define some constraints on non-conformance.
15:48:32 [nigel]
ack atai
15:49:42 [nigel]
atai: I thought the conclusion here from previous meetings when we discussed this is that handling of non-conformant
15:49:47 [pal]
15:50:05 [nigel]
... 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 [nigel]
... 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 [nigel]
... was out of scope.
15:50:27 [nigel]
ack pal
15:50:53 [nigel]
pal: That's my recollection, but it sounds like Glenn is proposing something a little narrower, only for validating processors.
15:51:09 [nigel]
... So for those who choose to describe processors as validating then this is the behaviour.
15:51:26 [nigel]
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 [nigel]
... For example the TTT toolset has a presentation engine in it. It performs validation processing as a precursor to
15:52:15 [nigel]
... presentation. It's an existing implementation (also of a transformation processor) that does implement the optional
15:52:29 [atai]
15:52:31 [nigel]
... features of validation. So we can go further than saying it's completely out of scope and having normative
15:52:44 [nigel]
... language that allows us to introduce defined behaviour.
15:53:12 [nigel]
pal: The particular thing here is that it's a class of processors described as validating processors.
15:53:43 [nigel]
glenn: Yes, TTML2 introduces these all formally along with some specific vocabulary for controlling it. I didn't want
15:53:56 [nigel]
... 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 [nigel]
... proposing and put them into a form that we could adopt in IMSC 1.
15:54:11 [nigel]
ack atai
15:54:34 [nigel]
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 [nigel]
... There are of course existing possibilities to check conformance, for example using an XML schema. This already
15:55:21 [nigel]
... has a defined behaviour for how to identify non-conformance. I'm not sure if we should also define behaviour for
15:55:25 [nigel]
... QC processes of TTML.
15:55:35 [nigel]
glenn: Take a look at #125 because there is a proposed set of language there.
15:56:05 [nigel]
Topic: Commit policy on github
15:56:23 [nigel]
glenn: There are two kinds of policies that are commonly used in development - Review Then Commit, when a
15:56:48 [nigel]
... consensus approval is obtained prior to a commit. Then there's Commit Then Review, which allows a
15:57:08 [nigel]
... 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 [nigel]
... on a Commit Then Review (CTR) lazy consensus process. It was based on the editor to decide when to commit
15:57:54 [nigel]
... 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 [nigel]
... object if necessary. Most teams follow a CTR process because it provides the least barriers to making changes.
15:58:44 [nigel]
... It can result in more bugs potentially. My experience is I've worked with both kinds of processes. With github
15:59:02 [nigel]
... which has a Pull Request mechanism it is possible to snapshot the changes and call them out for review. We
15:59:19 [nigel]
... discussed and agreed the move to github in Sapporo and talked about the review process but I don't recall doing
15:59:37 [nigel]
... 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 [nigel]
... anticipated changing from CTR to RTC. Recently both Nigel and Pierre have in the context of IMSC 1 been following
16:00:19 [nigel]
... 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 [nigel]
... 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 [nigel]
... to create PRs. All of those fixes are going to change the same lines of code.
16:01:25 [nigel]
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 [nigel]
... past.
16:01:36 [nigel]
glenn: I agree that's possible.
16:02:38 [nigel]
nigel: github also provides a tool for merging work in other branches to resolve the clashes.
16:02:53 [nigel]
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 [atai]
16:03:12 [nigel]
... 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 [nigel]
... 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 [nigel]
... no reason to follow the more time consuming process.
16:03:51 [nigel]
ack atai
16:04:12 [nigel]
atai: I think we should check again what we discussed at TPAC. I think we explicitly had some discussion about the
16:04:22 [nigel]
... new policy with github and I thought we agreed but I'm not sure.
16:06:01 [nigel]
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 [nigel]
... and said that to reduce the time between ED updates and WD publications and to use the automated WD publication
16:07:10 [nigel]
... tool we would use PRs.
16:08:19 [nigel]
glenn: I do recall saying that I wouldn't be happy to adopt this for TTML2.
16:10:12 [nigel]
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 [nigel]
... and I would myself strongly recommend that we use pull requests for everything including TTML2.
16:11:42 [nigel]
glenn: I don't mind using pull requests but I object to a 2 week period before a merge is permitted.
16:12:22 [nigel]
... 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 [nigel]
... not to impose a 2 week delay on all PRs.
16:13:41 [nigel]
nigel: That's coincident with what we said in Sapporo. There may a middle ground there that is actually acceptable.
16:15:11 [nigel]
s/may a/may be a/
16:17:30 [nigel]
glenn and pal: [re discussion without conclusion on who should be allowed to merge pull requesst]
16:17:58 [nigel]
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 [nigel]
rrsagent, generate minutes
16:18:03 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate nigel
16:18:51 [nigel]
16:20:42 [nigel]
16:20:52 [nigel]
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 [nigel]
16:21:13 [nigel]
rrsagent, generate minutes
16:21:13 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate nigel
16:24:51 [nigel]
16:28:13 [nigel]
a/... new policy/atai: new policy/
16:28:18 [nigel]
rrsagent, generate minutes
16:28:18 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate nigel
16:29:21 [nigel]
s/re discussion/discussion/
16:29:23 [nigel]
rrsagent, generate minutes
16:29:23 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate nigel
16:29:38 [nigel]
16:29:39 [nigel]
rrsagent, generate minutes
16:29:39 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate nigel
16:31:14 [nigel]
s|a/... new policy/atai: new policy/||
16:31:24 [nigel]
s/... new policy/atai: new policy/
16:31:27 [nigel]
rrsagent, generate minutes
16:31:27 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate nigel
16:31:56 [nigel]
16:31:57 [nigel]
rrsagent, generate minutes
16:31:57 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate nigel
16:32:31 [nigel]
s/Nigel, my W3C credentials do not work for the member page with the new meeting coordinates...//
16:32:34 [nigel]
rrsagent, generate minutes
16:32:34 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate nigel
16:33:05 [nigel]
ScribeOptions: -final -noEmbedDiagnostics
16:33:06 [nigel]
rrsagent, generate minutes
16:33:06 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate nigel
17:07:30 [atai]
atai has left #tt
18:15:15 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #tt