16:03:07 RRSAgent has joined #tt 16:03:07 logging to http://www.w3.org/2017/02/23-tt-irc 16:03:09 RRSAgent, make logs public 16:03:09 Zakim has joined #tt 16:03:11 Zakim, this will be TTML 16:03:11 ok, trackbot 16:03:12 Meeting: Timed Text Working Group Teleconference 16:03:12 Date: 23 February 2017 16:03:19 dae has joined #tt 16:03:55 present+ dae 16:04:20 Present: Nigel, Andreas, Glenn, Mike, Pierre, Thierry 16:04:23 Chair: Nigel 16:04:27 scribe: nigel 16:04:32 Topic: This meeting 16:05:41 Nigel: Today, we have IMSC version naming and liaison draft, and next WD publication. 16:06:04 .. And there are lots of TTML2 things, which we should try to cover some of at least. 16:06:13 atai has joined #tt 16:06:40 .. Any other points to cover today or other business? 16:06:45 group: No AOB 16:06:49 Topic: IMSC 16:09:06 nigel: We have a proposal to use 1.1 instead of 1.0.1. 16:09:18 .. Glenn earlier sent a formula for version numbering but did not cite any reference. 16:09:29 Glenn: That's correct, it is from my experience. 16:09:51 Nigel: Is there anyone who cannot live with the proposal to use IMSC 1.1? 16:10:57 Pierre: On the form of the name, 1.1 in my mind goes too far in terms of industry perception; 16:11:07 .. I was happy with an alternative like "Second edition". 16:11:20 .. From a function perspective it also raises the profile feature designators. 16:11:59 .. I would also be happy with something else like "IMSC 1 Amendment 1" or "imsc1.0-am1" for example. 16:12:09 .. For other SDOs that would convey the magnitude of the change. 16:12:39 Glenn: That terminology has not been used in W3C before. 16:12:55 Thierry: We do not have a clear policy in W3C - as long as plh agrees then it is quite open. 16:12:59 .. It is up to the group. 16:13:14 Andreas: I think I wrote already on the reflector what Pierre mentioned - I am unhappy with 1.1 16:13:32 .. because that would imply a change that does not reflect the difference. It would be viewed 16:13:44 .. as a major revision, which it is not. I would also favour 1.0.1 but something else like 16:13:53 .. amendment would work for me. 16:14:22 Glenn: I would be okay with calling it "amendment 1". I don't really like it but since there 16:16:17 .. is no tradition I don't think will object to it. 16:16:41 Nigel: I am not sure about the objection to 1.0.1 since there is no prescribed rule that it breaks. 16:17:25 .. I am also not sure about how "Amendment 1" would be considered since it sounds like 16:17:31 .. an Edition. 16:17:51 Glenn: This certainly isn't an Edition in the traditional sense of W3C. 16:22:20 Nigel: I'm actually concerned about the nature of the objection itself since there is no documentary 16:22:29 .. rule set that we are breaking. 16:22:55 .. And I am also not happy with the impression that Amendment gives. 16:23:22 Thierry: There is no policy for this. We brought this name to Philippe a few weeks ago 16:23:32 .. and, knowing the changes that go into the document, he agreed to it. That does not 16:23:41 .. mean we cannot change it, but for W3C that's perfectly reasonable. 16:24:49 Glenn: An objection does not have to be based on a policy document. 16:25:16 Andreas: I think we have really good reasons for breaking tradition here and also we are 16:25:29 .. showing we are flexible and fast in dealing with changes to requirements which is a good thing. 16:25:38 .. So there is a good reason to do something different from what we did before. 16:29:51 Thierry: Right now we have 1.0.1 - could I suggest we publish the WDs using the same 16:30:13 .. short name and take this to the Director on the transition to CR? 16:30:37 Pierre: I think what Thierry mentioned would be a path forwards - proceed as we are today 16:30:54 .. and have the "Amendment 1" in our back pocket and deal with the objection at CR, knowing 16:31:00 .. that we have this fallback. 16:31:27 Andreas: I don't have a big problem with Amendment 1, but I have seen it in MPEG specs - 16:31:33 .. maybe we could understand how they use it? 16:31:48 Mike: There's no real versioning in ISO, it's only done by amendments, corrigenda and new 16:32:00 .. editions, where new editions are a roll-up of everything that has happened in corrigenda 16:32:15 .. and amendments, and versioning is only by year. It's a different model fundamentally. 16:32:52 .. The numbers are designators for the standard. 16:33:20 .. And they are informal anyway, they're not formally part of the title of the document. 16:33:48 Glenn: I have no problem with the holding pattern that Thierry presented. 16:33:52 Nigel: Okay let's do that then. 16:34:30 Nigel: Moving on to the liaison text I sent, were there any problems? 16:34:56 Glenn: You'd incorporated my comments about the version being possibly subject to change, so I was happy. 16:35:08 Nigel: Thanks for the reminder, yes there was some email back and forth which ended, so 16:35:18 .. unless there are any other comments then I'm going to take the last version as being okay. 16:35:57 .. Now for publishing a WD for WR, there's nothing more to be done is there? 16:36:15 Pierre: Correct there are no issues open and all the changes are merged. 16:36:41 -> https://github.com/w3c/imsc/issues/213 16:37:01 Pierre: Will this issue generate any significant changes? 16:37:27 .. Do we just need to add a paragraph on the consequences for XML schema explaining that 16:37:53 .. content from other namespaces are pruned before validation? 16:38:13 Mike: I raised this issue. I think it is clear that the intent is to allow foreign attributes and 16:38:46 .. What's less clear to me is if foreign namespace elements are permitted and ยง12.1.1 is 16:38:59 .. strongly suggestive of this. However I think the world was of the view that elements are 16:39:14 .. intended to be allowed anywhere. I think rather than going back and trying to enforce 16:39:28 .. what may have been an intent 10 years ago it is probably better to clarify what we believe 16:39:43 .. today. At least in IMSC 1 it would be helpful to clarify our collective understanding, that 16:39:56 .. both attributes and elements in foreign namespace elements are allowed everywhere. 16:40:04 .. Does anyone disagree with that understanding? 16:40:32 Glenn: I think it is vague in TTMl1 regarding whether the foreign namespace elements are 16:40:44 .. pruned for other processing than validation processing. For validation it is clear they 16:40:59 .. are to be ignored/pruned. However given the text on the tt:metadata element it is clear 16:41:10 .. that for other kinds of processing they are to be retained. This is an ambiguity that needs 16:41:19 .. to be addressed in TTML1 via an errata and in TTML2. 16:41:47 Mike: I don't disagree with that but from an expediency point of view I am inclined to let 16:42:06 .. this lie in TTML1, and I would rather leave that alone and clarify it in IMSC 1 and fix it in TTML2. 16:42:19 Glenn: I think we could certainly craft an informative note under the section that describes the pruning 16:42:38 .. process that says the pruning is for the purpose of validity assessment for the TTML1 spec 16:42:53 .. only and does not necessarily apply to other kinds of processing or validity checking. That 16:42:59 .. would not be a technical change. 16:43:03 .. That would be in TTML1. 16:43:20 Mike: I don't have a problem with that but it is not sufficient to avoid the ambiguity in IMSC1. 16:44:24 Glenn: I would also put that into TTML2. 16:45:26 Nigel: Isn't the correct place to put this fix into TTML1? 16:45:57 .. Regardless of whether or not we add a statement to IMSC 1 informatively, we should fix it in TTML1. 16:46:24 Mike: The specific technical issue is that only the metadata element explicitly permits 16:46:29 .. foreign namespace elements. 16:46:45 Nigel: So explicitly permitting them in other elements would be a substantive technical change? 16:46:51 Mike: Right. 16:47:50 Pierre: The implementors of IMSC 1 are unlikely to reach the same conclusion without the 16:47:59 .. full background. The question is can we do something in IMSC 1 that is helpful for 16:48:13 .. implementors and that is consistent with our direction in TTML2 and hopefully in TTML1. 16:48:26 Andreas: What would the suggestion be Mike? 16:48:41 Mike: An informative note that says foreign namespace elements are permitted anywhere. 16:50:43 Nigel: And all tt namespace children of foreign namespace elements would be pruned for 16:50:47 .. TTML presentation too? 16:50:59 Mike: Yes, if an element is pruned for validation it has to be pruned for presentation as well. 16:51:01 Glenn: +1 16:51:18 Mike: For something like smpte:image there is some confusion about if that is even permitted. 16:52:09 Glenn: Mike seems to be suggesting that we should be explicitly adding foreign namespace 16:52:34 .. elements to the content model of each element in TTML1, but I do not think that is necessary. 16:52:43 .. If it is not prohibited then it is permitted. 16:53:14 .. There is a sticky issue that we tried to divorce validity from XML concrete syntax by 16:53:27 .. referring to an abstract document instance, but then we define the permitted attributes 16:53:40 .. and elements by using XML syntax in our documents. We tried to have our cake and eat 16:53:47 .. it too and we're having heartburn now. 16:54:05 Mike: I'll put my proposal in writing somewhere on the issue for IMSC 1 and we can pull request 16:54:17 .. it and put it to bed. I look forward to any proposals to address it in TTML1 also. 16:54:23 Nigel: That seems like a good way forward. 16:54:32 .. I will add a note to the issue now. 16:55:44 s/suggestive of this/suggestive that they are not permitted on any elements other than tt:metadata 16:56:47 Pierre: I just want to point out that making an XSD that reflects this will be exciting. 16:56:55 Mike: A proper one would require xs:any everywhere. 16:57:07 Andreas: The question is if a schema needs to contain the wildcard element because possibly 16:57:52 .. we should validate the pruned document against the schema not the one with the foreign namespace elements in. 16:59:31 Nigel: I've added a note to the issue. 17:00:01 Topic: TTML 17:00:13 Nigel: The above topic also was relevant to the TTML agenda item by the way. 17:00:52 Nigel: I did want to discuss the placement of TTML.next issues but that is not urgent for today. 17:01:36 .. We have a bunch of horizontal review comments from r12a. Glenn are you able to deal with those? 17:01:49 Glenn: I have too many other issues to cover before I get to those so I am going to respond 17:02:21 .. later. 17:03:44 Dae: The request for new features on TTML2 passed on Feb 15. So if the review comments 17:04:05 .. ask for new features we would say no, right? 17:04:14 Nigel: So far none of them do ask for new features, but yet. 17:04:44 s/but/not 17:04:49 atai has left #tt 17:04:54 s/not yet/but yes 17:05:09 Nigel: We're out of time so thanks everyone. [adjourns meeting] 17:05:50 rrsagent, make minutes 17:05:50 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/02/23-tt-minutes.html nigel 17:12:10 ScribeOptions: -final -noEmbedDiagnostics 17:12:11 Regret 17:12:15 s/Regret 17:12:20 rrsagent, make minutes 17:12:20 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/02/23-tt-minutes.html nigel 17:12:42 s|s/Regret|| 17:12:45 s/Regret// 17:12:47 rrsagent, make minutes 17:12:47 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/02/23-tt-minutes.html nigel 18:20:35 Zakim has left #tt