14:58:57 RRSAgent has joined #tt 14:58:57 logging to http://www.w3.org/2016/03/10-tt-irc 14:58:59 RRSAgent, make logs public 14:58:59 Zakim has joined #tt 14:59:01 Zakim, this will be TTML 14:59:01 I do not see a conference matching that name scheduled within the next hour, trackbot 14:59:02 Meeting: Timed Text Working Group Teleconference 14:59:02 Date: 10 March 2016 14:59:56 Present: Nigel, Pierre 14:59:59 chair: Nigel 15:00:03 Regrets: none 15:00:06 scribe: Nigel 15:01:48 Present+ tmichel 15:02:16 Present+ Andreas 15:03:22 Present+ Frans 15:03:37 Topic: This meeting 15:03:47 Frans has joined #tt 15:04:07 tmichel: I would like to add TPAC to the agenda - we need to say if we plan to meet at TPAC in Lisbon. 15:04:48 nigel: Today we need to discuss the Charter, the TPAC issue tmichel just raised, and TTML issues. 15:05:00 nigel: Any other business? 15:05:02 group: No AOB. 15:05:09 atai has joined #tt 15:05:12 Topic: Action Items 15:05:16 action-442? 15:05:16 action-442 -- Nigel Megitt to Add an issue to ttml2 for ensuring plain text accessibility -- due 2015-11-05 -- PENDINGREVIEW 15:05:16 http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/tracker/actions/442 15:05:46 nigel: I did this, and raised issue #151 https://github.com/w3c/ttml2/issues/151 15:06:01 close action-442 15:06:01 Closed action-442. 15:06:48 action-439? 15:06:48 action-439 -- Andreas Tai to Use of generic font family name "serif" should be allowed -- due 2015-11-01 -- OPEN 15:06:48 http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/tracker/actions/439 15:08:46 action-439: [TTWG Meeting 2016-03-10] This is issue #3 https://github.com/w3c/ttml-webvtt-mapping/issues/3 in the github repo - no point in having it as an action too, so closing. 15:08:46 Notes added to action-439 Use of generic font family name "serif" should be allowed. 15:08:54 close action-439 15:08:54 Closed action-439. 15:09:23 Present+ Glenn 15:10:03 Topic: Charter 15:10:36 tmichel: Plh would like to have a charter frozen by Tuesday for presentation to W3M on Wednesday, so we can 15:10:43 ... present to members at the AC meeting at the end of the month. 15:11:01 ... What I did is I updated it with the BBC Pull Request, and incorporated all the issues that were raised by Pierre. 15:11:16 ... I had some discussion with plh so we agreed on that. There was one remaining around "interoperable". 15:11:34 ... W3 Process says we should show at least two independent and interoperable implementation but I saw that 15:11:50 ... on the latest charter template it only shows "independent" implementation so I was able to remove the wording 15:12:01 ... "interoperable" so I hope that satisfies Pierre and the group. 15:12:29 ... The only remaining issue I think is about the licensing. I put specific wording for the document license for 15:12:43 ... TTML and IMSC, and put choice wording for the other documents for Software or Document License. 15:13:01 ... The last point is that I sent an email to David and Simon and they said that for WebVTT they want to use the 15:13:16 ... Software and Document license. Either I specifically say that or I leave it as it is currently, open, and we can 15:13:23 ... choose it later. David and Simon agree I think. 15:14:23 nigel: I am happy to have the charter as vague as it can be here, so I wonder if we should, despite the consensus 15:14:38 ... on document license for TTML and IMSC, leave it open for everything. 15:15:03 tmichel: You can do that - it's the Chair's decision. 15:15:18 nigel: Okay group, I'm proposing to leave the choice until later for all documents, is that okay with everyone? 15:15:23 group: no objections 15:15:46 nigel: In that case please could you change it to have the same wording for everything and we can decide later? 15:15:52 tmichel: Yes, I'll do that after the call. 15:16:00 ... The last issue is the PR from Andreas. 15:16:10 Frans: And a minor one from me adding a link to EBU 15:16:44 nigel: Looking at https://github.com/w3c/charter-drafts/pull/46 - any reason we shouldn't add a link to the EBU group? 15:16:50 s/ group/ 15:16:58 group: No reasons stated. 15:17:04 nigel: Okay I think you're safe to merge that one! 15:17:30 nigel: Andreas opened https://github.com/w3c/charter-drafts/pull/44 which is a bit more complex perhaps. 15:17:47 atai: I think the issue and the text say the same - there's under-specification on how TTML is used with the 15:18:02 ... texttrack model, and though there's been discussion in the past there's an ongoing need in the market to 15:18:16 ... specify this. It should be done partly in this group and possibly also in another group that handles HTML5. 15:18:31 ... There may be additional syntax or semantics needed in HTML5. 15:18:47 atai: Nigel pointed out that we don't know now if it should be a Note or a Recommendation. I'm happy with either. 15:19:07 nigel: Any other thoughts on if this should be a Recommendation or a Note? 15:19:18 tmichel: To me it sounds more like a Note, but I don't know exactly what the content would be. 15:19:34 atai: Do we have to decide now? How do we phrase it best to allow flexibility? 15:19:57 glenn: I was going to make that point too - we should make the language vague so we don't have to decide now. 15:20:27 tmichel: If we just say a "Technical Report" that doesn't say if it's a Note or a Recommendation so that should be fine. 15:20:49 tmichel: I don't think there's a guideline that requires Rec track docs to be listed in the Charter as being Rec track. I'll check it. 15:21:23 ... I've seen documents that were supposed to be Rec but were published as Note. 15:21:43 nigel: I think that's supported in the Process - groups can downgrade a Rec to a Note but I'm not sure about the 15:21:45 ... other way around. 15:21:55 glenn: I think we should leave it as Technical Report. 15:22:19 nigel: Okay, let's do that, and if tmichel can check that doesn't block any possibility then that's a way forward. 15:22:33 tmichel: Okay I'll do that. I also wanted to say that plh is comfortable with this statement. 15:23:07 nigel: So to be specific the change relative to the current PR is to remove the word "(Note)". 15:23:09 tmichel: yes. 15:23:17 nigel: Any other points to raise on this PR? 15:23:50 atai: I just have a question - will tmichel make the change? 15:23:53 tmichel: I'll do it. 15:23:56 atai: Thank you. 15:24:59 nigel: Great, sounds like there's nothing more to discuss on that PR. Can we revisit the issue on Interoperable, which is still open? 15:25:35 nigel: Pierre are you happy to close the issue? 15:25:41 pal: Yes, absolutely. 15:26:23 nigel: [adds note] - I can't close the issue. 15:26:28 tmichel: Pierre or I can close it probably. 15:26:39 pal: Unfortunately I can't. 15:26:42 tmichel: I'll close it then. 15:27:00 pal: Oh yeah, I can actually. [closes issue] 15:27:31 pal: As an aside it would be good to have a label per charter so that issues could be labelled against the charter they apply to. 15:27:34 tmichel: That's true! 15:28:59 nigel: Okay, we have no remaining issues and agreement on all the pull requests. Any last points on the charter? 15:29:13 tmichel: The end date is curious - 30th March: I'd have made it 31st. 15:29:16 nigel: Go ahead! 15:29:36 nigel: In that case once tmichel has made today's changes we have a version for plh to take to W3M. Thanks all! 15:29:58 Topic: IMSC 15:30:10 nigel: I just wanted to note, with thanks to all, that we have a Proposed Rec, at: 15:30:20 https://www.w3.org/TR/2016/PR-ttml-imsc1-20160308/ 15:30:29 nigel: Well done all! 15:31:06 tmichel: It would be nice if everyone could ping their AC rep to answer the review WBS to get as much response as possible. 15:31:43 ... You could also encourage people from other W3C member companies to respond. 15:32:11 Topic: TPAC 2016 15:32:31 s/Topic: TPAC 2016/ 15:32:56 tmichel: Plh has pinged Karen regarding a possible press release or blog. We have to prepare that to be ready for Rec. 15:33:27 pal: The next step is Karen will get back to us on some ideas and I'm happy to draft something if needed. 15:33:44 ... We're waiting for a response from Karen [who is away right now] 15:33:55 Topic: TPAC 2016 15:34:09 tmichel: For TPAC there are some questions: 15:34:19 ... 1. Do we want to attend TPAC in Lisbon in September. 15:34:43 ... 2. If yes, which days do we want to meet? Same format as usual, Mon/Tue/Thu/Fri for WG meetings, Wed for Plenary. 15:34:51 ... 3. What groups do we want to meet with? 15:34:58 s/ber./ber? 15:35:12 tmichel: We have to complete the form by April 15. 15:35:49 pal: Looking at my calendar it would be great to meet early in the week if possible. 15:35:57 tmichel: Mon 19/Tue 20? 15:36:00 pal: That'd be ideal for me. 15:37:20 nigel: My thought is that we will say yes, so I'll fill in the form to say that. 15:37:37 ... Now we will have a charter point on TTML/HTML we may have a stronger drive to meet an HTML group. 15:37:50 atai: We should find out which is the right group - could be Web Apps. 15:38:10 ... I'm not sure if we need a group meeting, but it's good to have a close relationship with the Web & TV IG. 15:38:43 glenn: I agree with Mon & Tue 2 days. 15:38:50 atai: That would work fine for me too. 15:38:52 tmichel: Me too. 15:38:54 nigel: And me. 15:39:27 nigel: If people could let me know what groups they may want to meet or avoid clashing with then I'll add them to the form. 15:39:31 ... The sooner the better please. 15:40:16 atai: If tmichel could advise on the right HTML group that would be helpful. I think it's web platform group? 15:40:23 tmichel: That's the right group. 15:41:58 nigel: The draft charter has us working in two subgroups, so I wonder if there's an expectation on all subgroups 15:42:49 ... meeting within a single TTWG slot or if they are treated as separate meetings. 15:43:01 tmichel: This year CGs are also allowed to meet - we could consider the TTCG! 15:43:08 nigel: We should invite them to join us. 15:43:15 glenn: If they do want to meet then we should, yes. 15:43:29 Topic: TTML 15:44:40 tmichel: There is a publication blackout during the AC week, but we can use the automated publication feature, 15:44:49 ... if Glenn agrees, with my help. 15:45:06 glenn: I'm trying to wrap it up in the next day or so. When does the moratorium start? 15:45:26 tmichel: Starts on 19th March, until 24th. 15:45:38 glenn: I'm confident I'll have it available early next week at the latest. 15:45:54 tmichel: If we want to use the regular procedure we could publish on 17th, meaning we must provide a draft to 15:45:59 ... the webmaster by Tuesday 15th. 15:46:09 glenn: That was my original schedule, so I'm still trying to make that. 15:46:31 ... If I don't then I'll investigate with tmichel what it would take to do the automated publishing. 15:46:44 ... Also come to think of it there's this new style mechanism that needs to be put in place, right? 15:46:56 tmichel: Actually what you put in is a new script that generates the Toc. 15:47:08 glenn: Also I would have to implement that, which I don't have in my schedule. 15:47:27 tmichel: Let me investigate with the XMLSpec tool if there are some guidelines how to use it with the new style. 15:48:19 nigel: Do we need a group decision? 15:52:17 tmichel: Yes but it's not a full transition so we don't need everyone to approve. 15:52:25 group: [discussion re process and approvals] 15:52:32 pal: Can we have a week to review? 15:52:48 glenn: I don't plan to make any further changes. 15:53:18 tmichel: Can we review by Monday or Tuesday? 15:53:36 nigel: I'd like the PR I've had open for a while to be merged in please? 15:53:41 glenn: Okay I'll give that a shot. 15:53:44 nigel: Thanks. 15:54:25 nigel: Any objections to reviewing within that timescale (Monday/Tuesday next week) and if there are no objections then publish as a new WD? 15:54:31 group: No objections. 15:54:37 nigel: For me that's a Decision! 15:56:32 nigel: Looking at issue #150 https://github.com/w3c/ttml2/issues/150 I just want to note that there's been a bit of offline discussion with me and Glenn. 15:56:46 atai: I mentioned in an email that I think this is an important issue and I'd like to spend some time discussing it, 15:57:13 ... perhaps next week. Even if we only agree the impact. 15:57:31 pal: What seems at first to be a bug may be a preference. I think it'd be really good to make sure we have all the 15:57:47 ... information and pick the right solution. At first it looked really simple but it seems a lot trickier. 15:59:08 nigel: I agree - that's why the proposed solutions so far have involved signalling in the document, since it is 15:59:34 ... unclear if some use cases actually prefer the gaps to exist. It would be much easier if we could just mandate 15:59:45 ... a single behaviour but I don't think we know enough to do that. 16:00:37 atai: I'd also note that this has been discussed in EBU - I think the right place to come up with any solution is definitely this group. 16:01:26 atai has left #tt 16:01:29 nigel: Okay, we're out of time for today, thanks very much everyone [adjourns meeting] 16:01:33 rrsagent, draft minutes 16:01:33 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/03/10-tt-minutes.html nigel 16:06:24 ScribeOptions: -final -noEmbedDiagnostics 16:06:26 rrsagent, draft minutes 16:06:26 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/03/10-tt-minutes.html nigel 16:10:52 zcorpan has joined #tt 17:11:31 Zakim has left #tt