13:59:43 RRSAgent has joined #tt 13:59:43 logging to http://www.w3.org/2016/11/03-tt-irc 13:59:45 RRSAgent, make logs public 13:59:45 Zakim has joined #tt 13:59:47 Zakim, this will be TTML 13:59:47 ok, trackbot 13:59:48 Meeting: Timed Text Working Group Teleconference 13:59:48 Date: 03 November 2016 14:02:30 Present: Glenn, Nigel, Thierry, Pierre 14:02:47 Chair: Nigel 14:02:49 scribe: Nigel 14:02:52 scribenick: nigel 14:02:57 Regrets: Andreas 14:05:58 Topic: This Meeting 14:08:06 nigel: I don't think we need F2F planning on the agenda. I know I have an action to check 14:08:21 ... in with David about WebVTT being on the agenda (or not), which I haven't managed to do yet. 14:11:33 tmichel: I think we should contact the WebVTT folk early to motivate them to attend. 14:11:37 nigel: Ok 14:11:55 pierre: So the plan is to go through another Wide Review of WebVTT? 14:12:05 tmichel: Yes, because the spec has so many new features that we must do that. 14:12:34 pierre: So will the comments on the first wide review be responded to? 14:12:47 tmichel: Yes, we should do that, and then make the spec edits for the next version. I'm still 14:12:52 ... missing a lot of info. 14:13:56 nigel: I see from the CG that there are some responses in favour of the current dispositions, 14:14:11 ... so I expect David to come back to the WG with an agreed proposal on that basis at some point. 14:14:35 tmichel: I added a column to the dispositions wiki and expect the WG to process each one 14:14:48 ... and add an appropriate label. I also plan to identify which changes are substantive. 14:15:21 nigel: Back to the agenda for today, I propose IMSC, Profiles then TTML - there's nothing else 14:15:28 ... to cover that I'm aware of. 14:15:43 ... By the way I noticed that the Unicode ticket we have has not been updated since Pierre's 14:15:51 ... comment 7 months ago. I don't know what's happening with that. 14:16:42 tmichel: I suggest asking r12a if he can help unlock that. 14:17:18 Action: tmichel Ask Richard Ishida for assistance in unblocking the Unicode ticket 8915. 14:17:18 Created ACTION-485 - Ask richard ishida for assistance in unblocking the unicode ticket 8915. [on Thierry Michel - due 2016-11-10]. 14:17:27 nigel: Any other business for today? 14:17:34 group: No other business. 14:17:52 Topic: IMSC 14:18:13 Pierre: I'm getting closer to a real proposal for replying to DVB and for a next version of IMSC. 14:18:24 ... Hopefully by next meeting I will have something concrete to discuss. 14:18:36 action-479? 14:18:36 action-479 -- Pierre-Anthony Lemieux to Refactor the imsc repository in preparation for future versions of imsc. -- due 2016-09-26 -- PENDINGREVIEW 14:18:36 http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/tracker/actions/479 14:19:03 nigel: The pull request is enough for us to track this. So I will close this. 14:19:08 close action-479 14:19:08 Closed action-479. 14:19:21 Pierre: I think I can merge that Pull Request too. 14:19:23 nigel: Agreed. 14:19:48 Topic: Profiles registry 14:20:16 nigel: Since we said we would come back to this in mid-November I just wanted to highlight 14:20:31 .. that now is a good time for everyone to review the document and make any proposals 14:20:44 ... for edits, otherwise, hold your peace! 14:21:00 Topic: TTML1 & TTML2 issues, actions, PRs, editorial actions etc 14:21:30 nigel: There's been a lot of work over the last week. 14:21:37 ... First, Wide Review: 14:21:50 ... We have a date for TAG review, at their Tokyo meeting on 23rd November. 14:22:23 pal has joined #tt 14:24:21 ... I have prepared a high level architectural summary of the changes, and sent that draft 14:25:22 ... to Glenn for review. I've also made the TAG aware of the vocabulary change annex. 14:25:33 Glenn: I'll review that and give you my feedback. 14:25:35 nigel: Thanks. 14:25:58 Glenn: What does the wide review require, in terms of a new WD? 14:26:46 nigel: Good question. We did say we would have a new WD for wide review prepared by 14:27:57 ... this time, but we're not there yet. 14:28:14 Glenn: We could publish a new WD just not a proper equivalent to "LCWD" right now. 14:28:24 nigel: How much time do we need to get there? 14:28:50 Glenn: I'm working on a new annex on root container region, then I need another one on 14:29:05 ... the root temporal interval, that pulls together all of the open issues on timing that we 14:29:20 ... had discussed. I put them in the agenda because there's no single good place in the spe 14:29:24 s/spe/spec 14:29:39 Glenn: to do that, and it seems like we could use normative appendices. 14:30:18 ... They are the two big ticket items. That will probably take at least a week more to deal 14:30:30 ... with both of them. Then we have a variety of new issues that we have been working 14:30:45 ... through, and some of them have taken a while to distil our thinking down to a point at 14:31:00 ... which I can make changes. Then there's the audio description functionality, and the editorial 14:31:11 ... notes throughout the document that do not have corresponding issues. Some of those 14:31:31 ... may be substantive. I'm thinking that it's probably going to take the next month or two 14:31:45 ... to resolve everything in there, and it depends how many new issues are filed. I'm glad 14:31:59 ... for Pierre's review comments, though they do add further work. 14:32:45 ... It could be near the end of the year before a "last call" draft. 14:33:53 nigel: From a Horizontal Review perspective we are encouraged to begin the review earlier 14:34:04 ... rather than later so given that I would prefer to issue a new WD as soon as possible and 14:34:20 ... then begin the review on it, and if we add further increments then the review delta will 14:34:32 ... be smaller. 14:34:53 Glenn: Then I will prepare a new WD snapshot and work with Thierry to check it is okay. 14:34:59 tmichel: Let me know when you are ready. 14:35:14 Glenn: Then I will use the automatic publishing system. I need to get an ID etc for that. 14:37:48 nigel: We need to point to a resolution for that, and actually as long as the pull requests' 14:38:03 ... review periods have expired then the resolution from Sapporo is sufficient to allow us 14:38:05 ... to publish. 14:38:13 tmichel: If you can provide that URL that's what we need. 14:38:23 nigel: Yes, it's on our wiki page under historic meeting. 14:38:30 s/ing/ings 14:38:54 nigel: If I remember correctly we decided that on the first day of the Sapporo meeting. 14:39:21 nigel: The other Horizontal Review point to raise is the updated draft security questionnaire 14:39:27 ... response that Thierry sent recently. 14:40:23 Glenn: Do I need to add an appendix called Security Considerations to the spec? 14:40:44 tmichel: SVG has one. 14:41:35 nigel: I am not aware of anything that requires us to add such a section. 14:41:45 tmichel: I don't think there's any requirement. 14:41:59 Glenn: Okay, if there is one then please add an issue to it. If we were to have one then 14:42:15 ... there would be very little in it since we have no scripting. However now that we have 14:42:25 ... added resource fetching and links there may be a possible need for it at some point. 14:42:47 nigel: I would defer this until we get Horizontal or Wide Review comments back that say 14:42:49 ... we need it. 14:42:52 Glenn: Good Idea. 14:42:56 +1 14:43:17 ... I also have a follow-up question about the IANA media type registration - what did we do? 14:43:54 nigel: We put it in https://www.w3.org/TR/ttml-profile-registry/ 14:44:11 ... which is a WG Note. The IANA registration points to that. 14:45:48 Glenn: In TTML1 we referenced the appendix, so I plan to vector references to the profiles registry. 14:46:02 nigel: Last time we talked about this we said we'd reference the IANA registration because 14:46:11 ... that's normative, but I'm concerned about circular references. 14:46:34 tmichel: I discussed this with plh and we can actually normatively reference WG Notes, as 14:46:41 ... long as we get approval from the Director. 14:47:23 tmichel: There's no process requirement here; I'll send the group a link to some guidance on this. 14:48:01 Glenn: I'll double check - it may not be that we even need a normative reference. 14:50:16 nigel: Back to the Security Questionnaire, I hear no objections so I propose that Thierry 14:50:42 ... sends it in current form when we have published the upcoming WD. 14:51:14 tmichel: Ok, give me an action for that. 14:51:46 ACTION: tmichel Shortly after publishing the next TTML WD send the security questionnaire for horizontal review 14:51:48 Created ACTION-486 - Shortly after publishing the next ttml wd send the security questionnaire for horizontal review [on Thierry Michel - due 2016-11-10]. 14:52:34 nigel: That's all on Horizontal review, so let's look at issue #217: https://github.com/w3c/ttml2/issues/217#issuecomment-257919913 14:53:52 Pierre: This is, specifically for tts:textOutline. 14:54:15 Glenn: We have to pick a value for cell lengths for tts:textOutline, but the note in TTML1 14:54:30 ... was to base it on the direction associated with the block progression direction. We have 14:54:40 ... two notes that refer to that which makes it tied to the writing mode, and Pierre asked 14:54:53 ... if that is really desired here, rather than just referring to the height of the computed cell 14:55:00 ... size. I tend to agree with him. 14:55:20 ... I'm not aware of any implementations that make it sensitive to writing modes. Even if 14:55:33 ... TTPE does then I would be willing to change it. I think there's relatively low risk in making 14:55:43 ... this normative and adding a TTML1 errata to change that language. 14:55:55 Pierre: Thanks for that great summary. The note's example does not actually state the 14:56:07 ... value of writingMode so maybe that was not even the intention at the beginning, it is 14:56:11 ... hard to tell. 14:59:27 nigel: That works for me. From a semantic perspective the other option is not to permit the 15:00:12 I will drop and will be back in 5 minutes 15:00:57 nigel: c unit here at all, but that's not good either. I did also wonder if we should have 15:01:14 ... units for cell height and cell width independently since the c unit is inherently ambiguous, 15:01:27 ... or at least context dependent. However our direction of travel here should be to move 15:01:48 ... towards rw and rh units so I do not want to add that complexity at this stage. 15:02:08 Glenn: Okay that's enough for me to go on for now. I don't anticipate any other objections. 15:03:30 nigel: I've added a note to the issue. 15:07:22 I am back. 15:11:04 nigel: I issued a pull request for the tts:textShadow example but had to remove the inset 15:11:18 ... keyword and the spread - they're not supported in CSS3 text-shadow. I wondered if 15:11:51 ... there is a reason why we need them or if we can just align with CSS. 15:12:14 Glenn: You might want to check what their rationale is, you could ask Bert Bos. 15:12:30 nigel: My default proposal is to align with CSS text-shadow for now and if CSS adds inset 15:12:51 ... or spread then we can consider adding that later. 15:13:16 Glenn: I see that Elika is the editor, so it wouldn't hurt to ask her. 15:14:19 ... In the meantime I don't mind you making those changes in the pull request. 15:15:10 nigel: That pull request is ready to go with those changes. 15:15:16 Glenn: Okay I'll review that and merge it. 15:15:40 nigel: Thanks - I've just realised the documentation on the shadow type in the schema may 15:15:46 ... need to be updated also. I'll have a look at that. 15:16:36 ... The pull request is https://github.com/w3c/ttml2/pull/218 15:29:18 nigel: Thanks everyone. [adjourns meeting] 15:29:22 rrsagent, make minutes 15:29:22 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/11/03-tt-minutes.html nigel 15:36:40 s/is, specifically/is specifically 15:37:42 rrsagent, make minutes 15:37:42 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/11/03-tt-minutes.html nigel 15:38:36 ScribeOptions: -final -noEmbedDiagnostics 15:38:38 rrsagent, make minutes 15:38:38 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/11/03-tt-minutes.html nigel 16:08:53 tmichel has joined #tt 16:29:08 Zakim has left #tt