15:04:15 RRSAgent has joined #tt 15:04:16 logging to http://www.w3.org/2016/02/18-tt-irc 15:04:18 RRSAgent, make logs public 15:04:18 Zakim has joined #tt 15:04:20 Zakim, this will be TTML 15:04:20 I do not see a conference matching that name scheduled within the next hour, trackbot 15:04:21 Meeting: Timed Text Working Group Teleconference 15:04:21 Date: 18 February 2016 15:05:50 Present: Pierre, Rohit, Nigel 15:06:13 Regrets: Andreas, Frans 15:06:21 scribe: nigel 15:06:23 chair: nigel 15:06:55 Topic: This meeting 15:07:46 nigel: I think it's worth covering the Charter, also IMSC 1 path to Proposed Rec, and TTML2 15:07:52 ... AOB? 15:08:22 rohit: Implementation Report status for IMSC? 15:08:29 nigel: okay let's cover that in the IMSC topic 15:08:39 Topic: Action Items 15:09:13 nigel: Aside from my action (no progress) everyone else with actions is not on the call, so we'll move on. 15:09:17 Topic: Charter 15:09:26 https://github.com/w3c/charter-drafts/ 15:09:52 nigel: BBC has made a pull request at https://github.com/w3c/charter-drafts/pull/19 15:11:25 nigel: [goes through the PR as it stands] 15:11:59 pal: It looks like I'll have time to look at the Charter and provide feedback. 15:12:40 ... On the line re addressing compatibility for IMSC what are your thoughts on "compatible"? 15:12:59 nigel: I think the group needs to define and address it, but the charter needs to be vague about what that means. 15:13:03 pal: I agree with that! 15:14:36 nigel: We changed the success criteria from "all available features" to "every available new feature". I hope that's not going to cause concern? 15:14:43 tmichel: No that's not an issue, that's what we need to do. 15:17:31 nigel: [further changes]. I also want to highlight the section about group success being dependent on all the subgroups 15:17:54 ... having sufficient participation, which we changed to being about subgroup success being dependent on that subgroup's participation. 15:18:25 tmichel: I understand your discomfort with the current wording. Let's review further to see if the BBC's proposed approach is acceptable. 15:19:07 nigel: Clearly others need to review the charter too, and we need to get something for Philippe to take forward quite soon. 15:19:43 pal: I'll provide my comments by Monday. 15:19:49 nigel: Fantastic, thank you. 15:20:17 nigel: I think Netflix would be well placed to review also. 15:20:31 rohit: I'll circle back with Netflix and review the proposed charter. 15:20:34 nigel: Thank you! 15:22:00 Topic: IMSC 15:22:14 Rohit_Puri__Netflix_ has joined #tt 15:22:31 nigel: We have three: 1) Merged/open Pull Requests, 2) Implementation Report, 3) path to Proposed Recommendation. 15:23:14 pal: We have resolved all issues and merged all pull requests, aside from an editorial tweaks issue which I'm using to keep track. 15:23:33 ... It's for making sure styles are consistent, and other editorial details. I plan to implement those just before the 15:23:37 ... Proposed Recommendation is made. 15:23:42 Rohit_Puri__Netflix_: That's awesome! 15:23:49 nigel: +1 15:23:56 pal: Thanks all for the help in getting there. 15:24:00 nigel: +1 to that too! 15:24:35 nigel: Rohit, you wanted to talk about Implementation Report? 15:24:54 Rohit_Puri__Netflix_: Just wanted to hear from Pierre about how the Implementation Report is looking and whether 15:25:10 ... the Skynav implementations count towards implementation. In one of the emails from Nigel I read that the tests 15:25:31 ... have been specified in terms of the rendering effect they produce, and the TTX/TTV are transformation implementations. 15:25:50 pal: As far as I know there are at least 2 implementations on the report for each test vector that match the vector, which 15:26:48 ... pass. 15:26:55 Rohit_Puri__Netflix_: Including the skynav report? 15:26:56 pal: Yes. 15:27:01 nigel: It's a good point. 15:27:36 pal: Sorry to interrupt, but I also have another implementation report in my inbox that I received from GIC indicating that 15:27:52 ... they think they've passed all the test vectors, so I expect they'll be formally submitting something in the next few days. 15:28:07 Rohit_Puri__Netflix_: I think they might be expecting Pierre to update the status. 15:28:11 pal: I'll follow up on that. 15:28:44 tmichel: Just to clarify it a bit, the Implementation Report is really meant, in the W3C process, for moving from CR to PR. 15:29:02 ... So once we've fulfilled our exit criteria, of course we can update the Implementation Report, but it's not required by the W3C. 15:29:19 ... What groups usually do is they spend more time on the test suite and enrich the test suite with more tests that are 15:29:36 ... given by different companies to allow new implementations better to test their products. Of course we can also add 15:29:44 ... to the implementation report if we have time and we feel it is worth it. 15:30:10 pal: That's my understanding. And we have gathered even more tests, so the question is how we expand the table. 15:30:22 ... The point I think we've made is that we've cleared the bar necessary for transition. 15:30:45 tmichel: We don't need to put more features to test on the Implementation Report. But we can add to the test suite as much as we want. 15:32:02 https://www.w3.org/wiki/TimedText/IMSC1_Implementation_Report 15:37:54 group: [discussed implementation report and transition to proposed recommendation] 15:39:53 PROPOSAL: IMSC 1 has met its exit criteria; we intend to exit CR for IMSC 1 at the earliest available date, having made any further required editorial changes. 15:40:06 pal: My understanding is that we need to wait for the IP review and then we can move forwards. 15:40:27 RESOLUTION: IMSC 1 has met its exit criteria; we intend to exit CR for IMSC 1 at the earliest available date, having made any further required editorial changes. 15:40:53 nigel: Having made that point, we will also continue to add further implementation reports. 15:41:11 tmichel: I would think that 1st week March for a Director call would be good, and then a 4 week review would take us 15:41:20 ... beyond the patent exclusion period. 15:41:45 pal: 29th Feb or 1st March would work for me. 15:41:48 nigel: Same for me. 15:42:59 tmichel: I'll check with the Director. About the time slot, would the usual time of this meeting work? 15:43:04 nigel: Yes, 1500 UK time. 15:43:28 pal: Okay for me too, 0700 Pacific Time. 15:43:56 tmichel: what about the hours following? (response is an hour later okay, two hours later maybe but less ideal) 15:44:18 tmichel: I have to have a document ready for that, even if it has some links that need to be finalised. 15:44:35 pal: I plan to have that in your hands for review by end of Monday so we have a document that's ready by end of next week. 15:44:38 tmichel: Ok. 15:45:02 pal: I'm using Respec.js, and what we did for the last CR is that every change results in a rendered version to the repo. 15:45:21 ... That resulted in a mistake last time. Can we not render until we have to give it to the web master and use the respec 15:45:26 ... version for the Director? 15:45:36 zcorpan has joined #tt 15:45:36 tmichel: If all the rules like pubrules work on it then that's okay. 15:45:51 ... Even if that doesn't work I can always use the script to make an output from your version. 15:46:02 pal: Okay let's try that. I'm trying to avoid the same silly mistake. 15:46:11 tmichel: I understand the more versions the more opportunity for errors. 15:46:46 nigel: Thanks pierre for all your work on this. 15:47:02 tmichel: For the resolution, when I will be drafting the transition request I need to point to a resolution in the minutes 15:47:26 ... that the group agrees to request transition. Will you do that next week? 15:47:40 nigel: Yes, we can do that based on the final version - there's enough time isn't there? 15:47:42 tmichel: Yes. 15:47:51 nigel: That's what we'll do then. 15:48:08 Topic: TTML2 15:48:34 nigel: Just to note that we have a merged PR, which I submitted, which updates all the issue links to point to github. 15:48:49 ... The media timing semantics PR is still open. 15:49:28 nigel: There's also been discussion of the use of inline block semantics. 15:49:36 https://github.com/w3c/ttml2/issues/146 15:49:59 nigel: On this one I was concerned that the semantics lead to unwanted behaviours, but I think we can get around them 15:50:26 ... mostly using nested span. The only outstanding issue I cannot find a way to solve right now is that BBC wants to be 15:50:47 ... able to paint background areas behind spans that have the same height as lineHeight, and we cannot see a reliable 15:51:05 ... way to do this. I plan to file an issue within the next week unless we can work out how. 15:52:51 ... I can't see a way yet to achieve this in CSS, and it may need a new semantic on tts:padding to allow that to happen. 15:54:30 Topic: Remaining agenda items 15:54:39 nigel: [speeds through in case there's anything to discuss] 15:55:01 ... On the TTML Versions note, I'm wondering if that should now be merged with the Profiles Registry. It seems like we don't need both. 15:55:20 pal: Andreas and Mike may have views on that. 15:55:24 nigel: True, Cyril too. 15:56:23 nigel: okay, that's all the agenda items for today. Thanks everyone! Same time next week... [adjourns meeting] 15:56:31 rrsagent, draft minutes 15:56:31 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/02/18-tt-minutes.html nigel 16:04:26 scribeOptions: -final -noEmbedDiagnostics 16:04:27 rrsagent, draft minutes 16:04:27 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/02/18-tt-minutes.html nigel 16:46:39 zcorpan has joined #tt 17:06:23 Zakim has left #tt