See also: IRC log
<scribe> scribe: nigel
nigel: I think it's worth
covering the Charter, also IMSC 1 path to Proposed Rec, and
TTML2
... AOB?
rohit: Implementation Report status for IMSC?
nigel: okay let's cover that in the IMSC topic
nigel: Aside from my action (no progress) everyone else with actions is not on the call, so we'll move on.
https://github.com/w3c/charter-drafts/
nigel: BBC has made a pull
request at https://github.com/w3c/charter-drafts/pull/19
... [goes through the PR as it stands]
pal: It looks like I'll have time
to look at the Charter and provide feedback.
... On the line re addressing compatibility for IMSC what are
your thoughts on "compatible"?
nigel: I think the group needs to define and address it, but the charter needs to be vague about what that means.
pal: I agree with that!
nigel: We changed the success criteria from "all available features" to "every available new feature". I hope that's not going to cause concern?
tmichel: No that's not an issue, that's what we need to do.
nigel: [further changes]. I also
want to highlight the section about group success being
dependent on all the subgroups
... having sufficient participation, which we changed to being
about subgroup success being dependent on that subgroup's
participation.
tmichel: I understand your discomfort with the current wording. Let's review further to see if the BBC's proposed approach is acceptable.
nigel: Clearly others need to review the charter too, and we need to get something for Philippe to take forward quite soon.
pal: I'll provide my comments by Monday.
nigel: Fantastic, thank
you.
... I think Netflix would be well placed to review also.
rohit: I'll circle back with Netflix and review the proposed charter.
nigel: Thank you!
nigel: We have three: 1) Merged/open Pull Requests, 2) Implementation Report, 3) path to Proposed Recommendation.
pal: We have resolved all issues
and merged all pull requests, aside from an editorial tweaks
issue which I'm using to keep track.
... It's for making sure styles are consistent, and other
editorial details. I plan to implement those just before
the
... Proposed Recommendation is made.
Rohit_Puri__Netflix_: That's awesome!
nigel: +1
pal: Thanks all for the help in getting there.
nigel: +1 to that too!
... Rohit, you wanted to talk about Implementation Report?
Rohit_Puri__Netflix_: Just wanted
to hear from Pierre about how the Implementation Report is
looking and whether
... the Skynav implementations count towards implementation. In
one of the emails from Nigel I read that the tests
... have been specified in terms of the rendering effect they
produce, and the TTX/TTV are transformation
implementations.
pal: As far as I know there are
at least 2 implementations on the report for each test vector
that match the vector, which
... pass.
Rohit_Puri__Netflix_: Including the skynav report?
pal: Yes.
nigel: It's a good point.
pal: Sorry to interrupt, but I
also have another implementation report in my inbox that I
received from GIC indicating that
... they think they've passed all the test vectors, so I expect
they'll be formally submitting something in the next few
days.
Rohit_Puri__Netflix_: I think they might be expecting Pierre to update the status.
pal: I'll follow up on that.
tmichel: Just to clarify it a
bit, the Implementation Report is really meant, in the W3C
process, for moving from CR to PR.
... So once we've fulfilled our exit criteria, of course we can
update the Implementation Report, but it's not required by the
W3C.
... What groups usually do is they spend more time on the test
suite and enrich the test suite with more tests that are
... given by different companies to allow new implementations
better to test their products. Of course we can also add
... to the implementation report if we have time and we feel it
is worth it.
pal: That's my understanding. And
we have gathered even more tests, so the question is how we
expand the table.
... The point I think we've made is that we've cleared the bar
necessary for transition.
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.
https://www.w3.org/wiki/TimedText/IMSC1_Implementation_Report
group: [discussed implementation report and transition to proposed recommendation]
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.
pal: My understanding is that we need to wait for the IP review and then we can move forwards.
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.
nigel: Having made that point, we will also continue to add further implementation reports.
tmichel: I would think that 1st
week March for a Director call would be good, and then a 4 week
review would take us
... beyond the patent exclusion period.
pal: 29th Feb or 1st March would work for me.
nigel: Same for me.
tmichel: I'll check with the Director. About the time slot, would the usual time of this meeting work?
nigel: Yes, 1500 UK time.
pal: Okay for me too, 0700 Pacific Time.
tmichel: what about the hours
following? (response is an hour later okay, two hours later
maybe but less ideal)
... I have to have a document ready for that, even if it has
some links that need to be finalised.
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.
tmichel: Ok.
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.
... 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
... version for the Director?
tmichel: If all the rules like
pubrules work on it then that's okay.
... Even if that doesn't work I can always use the script to
make an output from your version.
pal: Okay let's try that. I'm trying to avoid the same silly mistake.
tmichel: I understand the more versions the more opportunity for errors.
nigel: Thanks pierre for all your work on this.
tmichel: For the resolution, when
I will be drafting the transition request I need to point to a
resolution in the minutes
... that the group agrees to request transition. Will you do
that next week?
nigel: Yes, we can do that based on the final version - there's enough time isn't there?
tmichel: Yes.
nigel: That's what we'll do then.
nigel: Just to note that we have
a merged PR, which I submitted, which updates all the issue
links to point to github.
... The media timing semantics PR is still open.
... There's also been discussion of the use of inline block
semantics.
https://github.com/w3c/ttml2/issues/146
nigel: On this one I was
concerned that the semantics lead to unwanted behaviours, but I
think we can get around them
... mostly using nested span. The only outstanding issue I
cannot find a way to solve right now is that BBC wants to
be
... able to paint background areas behind spans that have the
same height as lineHeight, and we cannot see a reliable
... way to do this. I plan to file an issue within the next
week unless we can work out how.
... 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.
nigel: [speeds through in case
there's anything to discuss]
... 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.
pal: Andreas and Mike may have views on that.
nigel: True, Cyril too.
... okay, that's all the agenda items for today. Thanks
everyone! Same time next week... [adjourns meeting]