13:59:57 RRSAgent has joined #tt 13:59:57 logging to http://www.w3.org/2017/03/23-tt-irc 13:59:59 RRSAgent, make logs public 13:59:59 Zakim has joined #tt 14:00:01 Zakim, this will be TTML 14:00:01 ok, trackbot 14:00:02 Meeting: Timed Text Working Group Teleconference 14:00:02 Date: 23 March 2017 14:00:18 Present: Nigel 14:00:19 Chair: Nigel 14:00:21 scribe: nigel 14:00:32 dae has joined #tt 14:00:53 Present+ dae 14:02:10 tmichel has joined #tt 14:03:01 Present+ Pierre 14:03:13 Present+ Thierry 14:08:13 Topic: This meeting 14:08:28 nigel: For today we have some TTML issues and hopefully we will have r12a joining us 14:08:46 r12a has joined #tt 14:09:19 .. shortly. For IMSC I think we need to record publication of the WR and think briefly 14:09:39 nigel, i can't access the details for the webex link - can you send the link via irc private message? 14:09:52 .. about the next steps. I will leave that until later in the meeting. Any other business, or 14:09:56 .. constraints? 14:10:15 Thierry: Someone from VideoLan sent me a few messages yesterday, and he said that the 14:10:27 .. IMSC spec has a lot of issues, not only considering the two additional features, but also 14:10:41 .. the Rec. He said that the test suite is not good enough, so I have asked him to raise 14:10:47 .. those questions to the mailing list. 14:10:53 .. So he should send something. 14:11:22 Pierre: Jean-Baptiste? 14:11:27 Thierry: Yes 14:11:43 Pierre: In the context of imscjs I've created a more thorough test suite based on the TTML 14:11:58 .. test suite (with bug fixes and made compliant with IMSC1) and the IRT test suite, and I 14:12:12 .. have slowly been adding additional tests as people bring up additional test cases. The 14:12:33 .. suite consists of the TTML documents and some intermediate documents and output 14:12:49 .. images. I can point to that, and my goal is to submit that back to W3C as a complete 14:13:00 .. IMSC test suite. Just time has been stopping me from doing that. There are a couple of 14:13:07 .. bugs and some tests to add and then it should be good. 14:13:16 .. Please let me know if there are any obstacles to doing that. 14:13:34 Thierry: It is probably not clear that the goal of the W3C test suite is for interop not for 14:13:41 pal has joined #tt 14:13:44 https://github.com/sandflow/imscJS/tree/master/src/test/resources/reference-files 14:13:51 Thierry: product testing. I'm not sure how we explain that, but maybe I could look at it and 14:14:20 can anyone see this message ? Thierry, Nigel ? 14:14:32 .. add some words to explain that. It is good for our purposes not for implementors. 14:14:50 Present+ Glenn 14:15:04 ah, i can't access the meeting joining information, Nigel, could you send me the webex link in private irc channel ? 14:15:09 nigel: However a test suite that is good for implementors will suffice for our purposes too? 14:15:11 Thierry: yes. 14:16:20 Present+ r12a 14:17:10 Nigel: Just closing off on this meeting, any other points to raise? 14:17:18 group: [silence] 14:17:45 Nigel: Just a reminder, in 2 weeks on 6th April I will be unable to join the meeting so if 14:17:52 .. anyone wants to step in to Chair, please let me know. 14:17:57 Topic: TTML 14:18:52 https://github.com/w3c/ttml2/issues/277 14:19:25 r12a: If we had agreement on this then it might make things easier to discuss in other areas. 14:19:33 Dae: Link to the CSS document please? 14:20:06 https://drafts.csswg.org/css-writing-modes-3/#block-flow 14:20:43 r12a: The reason I raised the issue in the first place is because TTML says it is following 14:20:56 .. CSS but CSS has recently changed before going to CR. The change was that instead of 14:21:32 .. using the vertical-lr and vertical-rl and then fiddling with text-orientation to make 14:21:46 .. latin text run up the page for example there are two new values for writing-mode, which 14:22:04 .. are sideways-rl and sideways-lr and they are specifically for horizontal text in a vertical 14:22:23 .. arrangement, e.g. for text running alongside a table these would be useful. If you had 14:22:36 .. some latin text running up the page and you text-align it to the end of the line, in the 14:22:50 .. old way the text would drop to the bottom, but with sideways-lr the text rises to the top 14:23:03 .. as you would expect. It also makes it easier for line breaking and the default orientation 14:23:19 .. for characters is much easier to handle. This makes things much easier. 14:23:33 .. This leaves text-orientation only applicable to vertical-* writing modes, which are what 14:23:45 .. you would use for Chinese, Japanese and Mongolian most of the time. They determine 14:24:00 .. the default orientation of characters according to Unicode TR. 14:24:11 .. So the text-orientation property becomes a way of influencing what's happening in 14:24:29 .. those vertical- modes, so for text to stand upright you would apply text-orientation. 14:24:37 .. But normally you would use the sideways- values. 14:25:04 Glenn: Right now the writingMode property in TTML is based on the XSL-FO spec rather 14:25:18 .. than CSS. 14:25:23 Nigel: Doesn't it fall through to CSS? 14:25:38 Glenn: No, and certainly not to the current version. Actually it enumerates all the values. 14:25:46 .. At the time there was no writing mode in CSS. 14:26:00 .. Also, since this is based on TTML1 we don't have a lot of room for changes there because 14:26:11 .. it is already deployed in the field. The second point is that textOrientation right now 14:26:27 .. has a default of "mixed" so horizontal scripts would be in sideways mode. So right now 14:26:42 .. if you use tbrl or tblr with Latin text it would put it in sideways mode so you would end 14:26:56 .. up getting what is apparently (I haven't read the details of the new CSS specs) the same 14:26:57 q+ 14:27:12 Glenn: as the sideways mode, and you don't have to specify that since it is the default. 14:27:21 .. So I think it works exactly like you sais. 14:27:37 .. Also the textAlign default is start which would mean that if it were bidi Arabic it would 14:27:45 .. put it at the bottom in a vertical mode. 14:28:02 .. Again it would work correctly for both lr and rl paragraphs and would derive the textAlign 14:28:15 .. from that so Latin script in vertical lr would be aligned at the top, and Arabic at the bottom, 14:28:28 .. so it would get the same result. So I don't see any particular advantage in pulling in those 14:28:37 .. values from CSS at this point given the functional similarities. 14:28:40 ack r12a 14:28:53 r12a: I suspected there would be some legacy here so I put in the issue that perhaps one 14:29:18 q+ 14:29:50 r12a: issue would be to keep the legacy and if you want to introduce the new sideways modes. 14:30:02 ack dae 14:30:31 Dae: One question about the CSS document. It says the sideways values link to level 4 but 14:30:35 .. all those links are broken. 14:30:45 r12a: I thought it said they are at risk. 14:30:57 Dae: The newer editor's version seems to defer them. I'm not sure which version is newer. 14:31:11 .. A general to the question: how do we deal with values that are at risk or being deferred. 14:31:57 Glenn: textOrientation is a new property in TTML2 but writingMode was there previously 14:32:06 .. so we have to work around that a bit. The current definition is that the default initial 14:32:23 .. value is "mixed" which is defined as [reads definition from TTML2]. 14:32:40 -> https://w3c.github.io/ttml2/spec/ttml2.html#style-attribute-textOrientation 14:32:54 Glenn: So you don't need to use sideways because you get the same default behaviour. 14:33:19 .. The only time you would need to use sideways is... hmm, that raises in my mind the question. 14:33:33 .. I guess if you had set the default to upright and you wanted to override with sideways 14:33:38 .. you might do that explicitly. 14:34:08 r12a: The mixed default is perfect. It says "glyphs ... are set 90º clockwise" which is fine, 14:34:25 .. but then it does not clarify in my mind whether if the word "Hello" would have H above 14:34:43 .. or below e - it sounds like only the glyphs are changed so you might end up with olleH 14:34:54 .. in the text. That was a stumbling issue in CSS and why they moved to the new model. 14:35:07 .. The other thing is "Hello world" in English and sideways-left is applied and then 14:35:20 .. textAlign is applied then there is the question of which way does the text move if it is 14:35:33 .. smaller than the box? That's not a glyph thing, it's a box thing if you like. Not just a 14:35:44 .. question of turning the glyphs around but applying a different mechanism to the way 14:35:47 .. the box is working. 14:36:16 Glenn: I think you're talking about the baseline and referring to the fact that in vertical 14:36:28 .. scripts you will sit on a centre baseline whereas a roman script will have a non-centred 14:36:30 .. Latin baseline? 14:36:45 r12a: No I'm referring to the distinction between twiddling the orientation of the glyphs and 14:36:59 .. changing the line direction. The TTML2 spec only seems to talk about changing the glyphs 14:37:23 .. individually not the group of glyphs. 14:37:53 Glenn: So if you had sideways-left then you would expect Hello to have H on the bottom and 14:37:57 .. ascenders pointing right? 14:38:08 r12a: The worry is that might not be the case, and that might not be the case in CSS. 14:38:22 .. You might still read H e l l o down the page and the descenders would point to the left 14:38:28 .. instead of the right, in sideways left mode. 14:39:01 Glenn: I guess I did not say "clockwise" or "anticlockwise" relative to what. I meant relative 14:39:19 .. to an upright position. That would mean counterclockwise 90º would put the ascender 14:39:21 .. to the left. 14:39:24 r12a: Right. 14:39:47 Glenn: In both cases I don't see anything about if it affects the entire line box as well. In 14:39:58 .. other words model as though setting horizontal text and rotate the line instead of the 14:40:06 .. glyphs. OK that's a fair point. 14:40:21 r12a: When the CSS folk realised that they switched to new values for writing-mode instead, 14:40:40 .. because that affects alignment, position of characters in the line box, etc. so it turned 14:40:51 .. out to be a convenient way of looking at the world. Specifically for use with what are 14:41:01 .. normally horizontal scripts - there are plenty of situations where you want them to run 14:41:07 .. up or down the page rather than horizontally. 14:41:21 Glenn: That's fair. In TTML1 we had an example of a latin script in a vertical mode and we 14:41:33 .. used upright glyphs in the example which raises the point of if it is valid to change to 14:41:46 .. mixed for TTML2 and have "mixed" cause rotation, which would invalidate that example, 14:42:00 .. even though the example was informative. That could be an issue we should document 14:42:03 .. and talk about more. 14:42:15 Glenn: I understand the comments now, Richard, thanks for those. I want to give it some 14:42:27 .. more consideration, but I think you also understand some of what TTML2 has done at this 14:42:38 .. point. There are also some existing implementations of the new features that have been 14:42:48 .. deployed so we have to be a little sensitive about those too. 14:43:18 r12a: One more thing: these sideways values in CSS are best thought of as a way to 14:43:31 .. rotate the box rather than the character glyphs. It helps with understanding what is 14:43:32 .. going on. 14:43:44 .. That's not necessarily what happens, but it's helpful for thinking about it. 14:43:55 Glenn: There may be some value in that to do with the issue of whether you start at the 14:44:09 .. top or the bottom. I need to cognate on that a bit more. The rotation of glyphs though 14:44:22 .. is still a relevant point because fonts have rotated variants and in the case that a font 14:44:38 .. does not have rotated variants it may perform the rotation manually on a glyph by glyph 14:44:55 .. basis. This comes up in asian scripts more than in roman scripts. But the same rotation 14:44:59 .. dimension applies to any font. 14:45:14 r12a: CSS does still have a sideways value for text-orientation for that kind of scenario. 14:45:44 Glenn: I had a conversation with @fantasai about this a few years ago, after which I think 14:45:57 .. the sideways versions of text orientation were taken out. We had to rely on the state 14:46:05 .. of the CSS definitions at that time. 14:46:19 Dae: Do we know when Level 4 is coming out? Are we confident that the definition of 14:46:25 .. sideways won't change? 14:46:43 r12a: I don't know the a-z of that - I know she read this and agreed with what I was 14:47:02 .. recommending. Firefox has implemented sideways-* already, so I am hoping that we 14:47:17 .. would get Chrome to support those also, so I will follow up on the status of that. 14:47:39 Glenn: Dae I think we cannot make any schedule dependent on a CSS document appearing 14:47:45 .. at Rec, so keep that in mind. 14:48:07 Pierre: Flipping the question around: can the CSS document reach Rec? And by what time? 14:48:19 r12a: I know they have been talking this week about fast-tracking some specs including 14:48:27 .. Writing Modes so I am hoping it will reach Rec. 14:48:46 Pierre: It is hard for this group to follow a CSS spec without a clear schedule, because the 14:48:50 .. risk is high. 14:49:01 r12a: That is something to talk to CSS about - it would help them I think. 14:49:38 .. Like Glenn said, it would be great for users as well if CSS and TTML work in similar ways 14:49:53 .. because they would not need two ways to think about things. There is the possibility 14:50:06 .. of moving ahead with this if they make sense. There are lots of examples of that in 14:50:16 .. TTML2 for example with Ruby, alignment and so on. 14:51:11 Glenn: I have brought some of those up in the past with Elika and Koji. 14:52:34 Nigel: Let's move on to the next issue then: 14:52:41 -> https://github.com/w3c/ttml2/issues/240 14:54:09 q+ 14:54:13 Nigel: Pierre I think last week you thought we may be able to conclude on this? 14:54:28 Pierre: My conclusion from the thread is that there is a mapping for every option in CSS 14:54:37 .. to every option in TTML and the discussion is about the best default. 14:54:56 r12a: That's my understanding as well. There are three things that have been coming into 14:55:07 .. the conversation. They are to do with things that sit alongside the vertical line. 14:55:25 .. One things is text emphasis marks, another is Ruby, and another is "lines". Actually 14:55:47 .. the position of those things may be different depending on which thing they are. 14:56:04 .. There is a Ruby issue for #240 but that might not be appropriate until we've decided 14:56:19 .. what to do with textEmphasis. Then for me the question is what is the default specifically 14:56:28 .. for tblr - I'm not worried about tbrl. 14:56:43 Pierre: The default in TTML2 for some writing mode might not be or might be what 14:56:55 .. someone expects depending on language. The challenge is changing the value of 14:57:11 .. the default based on the value of something else makes the processing algorithms very 14:57:24 .. complex. That would be an implementation burden. If the issue is simply one of defaults 14:57:30 .. we might have to accept what TTML is today. 14:57:31 q+ 14:57:45 Glenn: I concur with Pierre. We need to have a default for each property, that's a given. 14:58:02 .. There's no argument about whether "before" should be the effective default for tbrl or 14:58:17 .. any of the horizontal modes. The only question is if it would be appropriate if you were 14:58:32 .. using Mongolian, which apparently puts text emphasis on the after edge for tblr writing mode. 14:58:47 .. Now Mongolian can also be written in tbrl where you would want it to be on the before 14:58:52 .. side (the right side). 14:59:01 r12a: That's not true - you never write Mongolian tbrl. 14:59:16 Glenn: I have seen a number of manuscripts at Harvard that were directly from the imperial 14:59:26 .. language in Beijing and those were all in tbrl. 14:59:39 r12a: Were they Chinese documents? In that case you would see tbrl. 14:59:57 Glenn: They were pure Mongolian with occasional Chinese characters in. They were created 15:00:12 .. using the same writing practice as normal in Chinese with a scroll that gets unwound to 15:00:36 .. the left and the right roll gets wound in. In Mongolian they shift the scrolls 90º counter-clockwise 15:00:58 .. so in those scrolls they look tbrl in pure Mongolian. I've never seen a tblr Mongolian 15:01:09 .. document in my own research but I haven't looked at modern Mongolian other than what 15:01:25 .. I have seen in Chinese word processors in Inner Mongolia. I don't recall looking at text 15:01:28 https://github.com/w3c/type-samples/issues/55 15:01:34 Glenn: emphasis in those contexts though. 15:01:49 .. For me it's like Pierre said, adding a variation in how to derive the default behaviour 15:02:01 .. based on potentially a resolution of xml:lang would certainly complicate things and 15:02:11 .. from an implementation perspective it would be much easier to apply "before" to all modes 15:02:22 q+ 15:02:27 Glenn: and then if one wants to do something different use the initial element in TTML. 15:02:42 .. There's no argument about what Richard says. 15:02:44 ack r12a 15:02:56 r12a: I just put a link into IRC by the way with some Mongolian text. I have been working 15:03:02 atai has joined #tt 15:03:09 .. with Mongolian experts over the last 2 years and seen a lot of Mongolian text. This example 15:03:21 glenn has joined #tt 15:03:21 .. was sent to me a few days ago, with "underlining" that appears on the right hand side. 15:03:36 .. All of the text I have seen goes tblr. Let me clarify that I'm not asking for a decision to 15:03:49 .. be made based on the language. I am asking for the default to be dependent on whether 15:04:05 .. we have tblr or tbrl as the value, which is what CSS does. Also to clarify that the requirements 15:04:18 .. for Mongolian as I understand them from talking to Mongolian folks is that the same side 15:04:33 .. is used for the emphasis as Japanese, which means that for horizontal the line appears 15:04:48 .. on the other side, the same as Japanese, on the right for vertical or underneath for 15:05:01 .. horizontal. CSS has the same default for Mongolian as for Japanese for underlining. 15:05:16 .. For text emphasis I don't know if they actually do dots or sesame seeds or whatever in 15:05:25 .. Mongolian. The picture in the link uses a line for emphasis. 15:05:39 .. For Ruby, it is clear that it is always on the right hand side. I asked three Chinese experts 15:05:55 .. this morning how this works. In Chinese the line is used for identifying names of people, 15:06:09 .. book titles etc and it goes on the left hand side unlike Japanese or Mongolian. The text 15:06:22 .. emphasis may go on the left hand side but typically would go on the opposite side from 15:06:34 .. the line used for book titles etc. They said you don't see much vertical subtitling in Chinese 15:06:46 .. at all, and where it is used the line progression is right to left rather than left to right. 15:06:59 .. In Mongolian you would expect the line progression to be left to right. 15:07:24 .. My worry is that in most usage these days, tblr is for Mongolian, but if we are using 15:07:35 .. before or after then for every Mongolian subtitle you have to make sure you get things 15:07:48 .. on the correct side. It is not quite so straightforward because in some cases things move. 15:08:08 .. As I understand it in Mongolian the line goes on the left and the Ruby goes on the right. 15:08:20 .. It seems unfair for these, the main users of this orientation, to have to set a different 15:08:28 .. default. It is not based on the language but on the language model. 15:08:39 Glenn: In a TTML2 document you just have to put one element up in the head of the 15:08:48 .. document so it is not much of a burden to do that and it makes processing more 15:09:00 .. consistent and reduces the implementation special cases to worry about. 15:09:11 Pierre: Can we add a note pointing out Richard's observations? 15:09:23 Glenn: That would be quite appropriate, and to advise on what to do. Would that work? 15:09:36 r12a: That would help, yes. I agree it's only one change to make. The bigger concern is that 15:09:54 .. it does not address the sensitivities of people who may think there is a western or a 15:09:58 .. Chinese bias being introduced. 15:10:14 Glenn: I understand that very well! 15:10:25 Present+ Andreas 15:11:02 Glenn: I am also sensitive to implementers, and testing. It seems like an awful lot of work 15:11:14 .. to change the behaviour to make the default sensitive to the writing mode and also as 15:11:28 .. I have pointed out in the case of Chinese I have on many occasions seen tblr including 15:11:36 .. Ruby on the left and text emphasis on the left. 15:12:44 r12a: By the way text emphasis does typically occur on the left hand side but the Ruby 15:13:00 .. would be very unusual especially if you are using Bopomofo so that's a difference between 15:13:06 .. Japanese and Chinese. 15:13:25 Glenn: One question: at least in Mongolian proper ("outer Mongolian") Cyrillic was the 15:13:27 https://github.com/w3c/type-samples/issues/56 15:13:42 Glenn: primary script used for many years, has there been much movement to going back to 15:13:45 .. the primary script? 15:14:00 r12a: There is a strong desire to go back to the original script and I can produce lots of 15:14:06 .. examples quite easily. 15:14:28 .. I have seen books and booklets in Mongolian, I don't know about newspapers. 15:14:40 Glenn: It would be a useful point of note to hear what someone in a standards body in 15:14:59 .. the mainland's position would be because they have an official use of the script for 15:15:06 .. "inner Mongolia" on the Chinese side. 15:15:17 r12a: Most of my conversation has been with them actually. 15:17:02 Nigel: So one possibility is to note the option to use the initial element and another is 15:17:12 .. to make the default writing mode dependent - is that what CSS uses? 15:17:35 r12a: Yes, in CSS the terms are "over" and "under" and they are writing mode dependent. 15:17:51 Glenn: We could add over and under, either now or at some point in the future. My 15:17:58 .. preference is to add a note and not add over or under at this time. 15:18:29 Nigel: Does that mean that the mapping to CSS will be harder if we do not add over and under now? 15:18:46 Glenn: I'd have to think... If we add over and under in the future, how would that impact 15:18:58 .. the default now? The default now is based on auto which already has a quirk based on 15:19:13 .. the number of lines - it maps to "outside" for two lines which is definitely not in CSS, 15:19:25 .. and that came about from subtitle usage in Japan, not considering Mongolian usage. 15:19:39 .. If it is not two lines then it maps to "before". Even with what we have now it is not unlikely 15:19:51 .. that you would end up specifying a different behaviour e.g. "before" if you don't want 15:20:04 .. this outside behaviour. If we added over and under in the future that would not change 15:20:19 .. the default setting so you would still end up having to specify e.g. over instead of before 15:20:23 .. for the CSS behaviour now. 15:20:58 Pierre: My 0th order concern that there is nothing missing in TTML is met. 15:21:12 .. The choice of writing-mode dependent default is a departure from TTML so more 15:21:25 .. error prone. Adding over and under seems a middle ground. Adding a note seems 15:21:49 .. worthwhile regardless. The main point is that CSS diverged from XSL and TTML so we 15:21:55 .. have to cover those gaps as we move along. 15:22:16 Nigel: And you did not have a concern about mapping to CSS? 15:22:32 Pierre: There is a static mapping, so no. 15:23:39 Nigel: The group's view seems to be to go with a Note primarily, and that could be enough 15:23:53 .. to address the sensitivies of Mongolian readers and writers? 15:24:05 r12a: If you add the note then I will seek review of it. 15:24:27 Pierre: It is more than that, the use of initial is the ultimate way to address cultural or 15:24:30 .. personal preferences. 15:24:51 Glenn: I agree. The question should be "can you live with specifying initial?" 15:27:04 Nigel: Ok I have added a note to the issue about this. 15:28:13 .. Now lets move on to: 15:28:21 -> https://github.com/w3c/ttml2/issues/254 15:28:30 Nigel: Have we actually just discussed this? 15:28:45 r12a: The default preference may be different for Ruby and lines and text emphasis. In 15:28:59 .. Chinese the most likely thing is text emphasis on the left hand side regardless of lr or rl 15:29:11 .. but Ruby would be on the right hand side. I'm not sure that the answer for #240 would 15:30:32 .. provide the answer for this but I think that the final result is going to be the same. 15:31:15 Nigel: Is this the same as the discussion we just had? 15:31:28 r12a: It is, essentially the same and the thing that lead to #240. 15:32:58 Nigel: Ok I've added a note to the issue on that. 15:33:16 Nigel: Moving on to #253 15:33:17 -> https://github.com/w3c/ttml2/issues/253 15:33:53 Nigel: My question is do we have enough data to agree if we need to support bopofo Ruby? 15:34:10 r12a: We still need data about if bopomofo is used in subtitles for Chinese and I was not 15:34:26 .. able to get an answer to this yet when I was talking to people from Taiwan. At a minimum 15:34:40 .. we should not close out the possibility of adding it later if the need for it becomes stronger. 15:34:58 Glenn: I don't see why we could not add support for character based Ruby in the future, 15:35:37 .. either in IMSC or in TTML2. I've been watching [scribe missed audio] ... I wouldn't rule 15:35:49 .. out the use for pedagogical purposes but I don't have any data points there. 15:36:02 r12a: It is very much a Taiwanese thing, not used in mainland China. 15:36:53 Nigel: Are we expecting a response to the question on the issue any time soon? 15:37:05 r12a: I will take an action for myself to prompt him on that. 15:37:49 Dae: I think this is a primary candidate for TTML.next - one of our major subtitle authors 15:38:09 .. based in China never use bopomofo. 15:38:17 s/one of// 15:38:28 r12a: One possibility is that again you could put a note in saying we know we do not 15:38:45 .. support bopomofo ruby at the moment and even add a request for contact if anyone 15:38:58 .. thinks it is important. At least this shows we have not been ignorant of it. 15:39:10 Glenn: That's a good point. 15:41:55 Nigel: Okay I have added a comment on the note explaining our default position on this 15:42:02 .. in the absence of further data points. 15:42:08 -> https://github.com/w3c/ttml2/issues/253#issuecomment-288760842 15:43:06 Nigel: Thank you very much for joining us today Richard! 15:43:10 Glenn: Thanks for your input Richard. 15:43:21 r12a: Thanks, bye! 15:43:45 Nigel: In the time remaining can we very quickly cover the open pull request on TTML1? 15:43:51 -> https://github.com/w3c/ttml1/pull/233 15:44:06 Glenn: I believe this is something Andreas posted. I need to coordinate it with TTML2 actions 15:44:17 .. around the same text and make sure we are consistent and we have dealt with the errata 15:44:20 .. aspects of it. 15:44:58 Andreas: I think this makes sense. It has been open for 1.5 months so I think we should 15:45:04 .. make progress on this to clear it from the table. 15:45:54 Nigel: Looking at the history this is an action for Glenn then. 15:46:07 Glenn: My only concern there is I will probably edit it to shorten it quite considerably. It 15:46:20 .. seems overly detailed as a note because I don't think we want to dive into some of the 15:46:32 .. language around XSL-FO semantics like large allocation rectangle etc so I would like to 15:46:40 .. say the same thing paraphrased to make it shorter. 15:47:03 Andreas: Then this means it is not actually accepted. 15:47:09 Nigel: We'll have to review the edited version. 15:47:25 Pierre: As a matter of process it is weird to have a pull request open for so long. What is 15:47:31 .. the deadline for getting this addressed? 15:47:54 .. It is weird for the group to agree the essence of the pull request and then have nothing happen. 15:48:05 Glenn: We need to have the language the same in TTML2 and TTML1 so there is a dependency. 15:48:43 .. We haven't prioritised any updates on TTML1; TTML2 has a higher priority. 15:48:55 Nigel: We generated a big list of discussed and agreed issues for TTML1 in London. 15:49:02 Glenn: We don't have a schedule for a third edition. 15:49:17 Nigel: We don't have an agreed date for it. 15:49:30 Glenn: As soon as I have it addressed in TTML2 I will backfill into TTML1. 15:49:43 Andreas: I would like to support what Pierre said - we are quite fast in merging pull requests 15:49:56 .. in TTML2 and I would like to do the same in TTML1 also. 15:50:01 Pierre: Can we prioritise this one? 15:50:14 Glenn: Sure I will put it to the top of my list and do it today, in TTML2 and TTML1. 15:50:28 Nigel: OK thanks. 15:50:33 Topic: IMSC 15:50:48 Nigel: Thank you to Pierre and Thierry for publishing the WD for WR. 15:50:59 -> https://www.w3.org/TR/2017/WD-ttml-imsc1.0.1-20170322/ 15:51:21 Nigel: That was published yesterday, and Thierry posted many messages to other W3C 15:51:29 .. groups requesting wide or horizontal review. 15:51:46 .. But not all groups - Thierry you need some input from the group? 15:51:54 Thierry: I'm missing privacy and security and TAG. 15:52:23 Nigel: Please could you do a first draft of the privacy and security questionnaire for the 15:52:25 .. group to review? 15:52:30 Thierry: Yes I will. 15:52:54 Nigel: Okay, adding the issue... 15:53:43 -> https://github.com/w3c/imsc/issues/222 15:53:58 Nigel: Thank you, and I have an action as previously agreed to send outgoing liaisons to 15:54:14 .. the usual groups based on the text that we agreed a while back. I think only the review 15:54:18 .. response date needs to be edited. 15:54:51 .. I will be able to do that probably on Monday if I can't find time to do it any sooner. 15:55:23 Thierry: So we might receive some comments - I propose to track those and then if we 15:55:30 .. need to come up with a document at the end then ... 15:55:44 Pierre: Can we do it through GitHub with a Wide Review comment tag on the issue? 15:55:56 Thierry: Do you want to use the Last Call tool or do something different? 15:56:07 Pierre: I assume we should track it on GitHub. Is there a downside to that? 15:56:21 Thierry: No I don't, at some point we need a disposition of comments document. 15:56:37 Pierre: I assumed we could use labels on GitHub and then generate say a PDF to be the 15:56:39 .. document. 15:56:50 Thierry: We need the comment, our resolution, and agreement from the commenter. 15:58:27 Nigel: I would suggest recording the issues in GitHub and also using something like the 15:58:34 .. Last Call tool to generate the documentation that we need. 15:58:47 Thierry: I am happy to maintain both, and I don't anticipate hundreds of comments. 15:59:01 Pierre: What is important is that every change we make to the document is tied to an 15:59:04 .. issue in GitHub. 15:59:19 .. If you prefer to use the LC tool we can probably create a bunch of GitHub issues at the 15:59:33 .. end and link back to the tool comment if we can, but a lot of folk look at GitHub to see 15:59:45 .. what issues are open. My intuition is to enter the issues on GitHub to be transparent. 15:59:56 Thierry: We'll start like that and if needed and there are a lot of comments I will use the 16:00:06 .. tool. Even with 10 comments it is faster to do it manually. 16:00:51 Nigel: Great I think that is everything for today and we have hit time, so thank you everyone. [adjourns meeting] 16:00:55 rrsagent, make minutes 16:00:55 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/03/23-tt-minutes.html nigel 16:02:33 Regrets: Mike 16:02:50 s/nigel, i can't access the details for the webex link - can you send the link via irc private message?/ 16:03:04 s/can anyone see this message ? Thierry, Nigel ?/ 16:03:11 s/ah, i can't access the meeting joining information, Nigel, could you send me the webex link in private irc channel ?/ 16:04:17 rrsagent, make minutes 16:04:17 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/03/23-tt-minutes.html nigel 16:05:44 ScribeOptions: -final -noEmbedDiagnostics 16:05:47 rrsagent, make minutes 16:05:47 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/03/23-tt-minutes.html nigel 17:00:10 atai has left #tt 17:28:17 Zakim has left #tt 18:00:37 tmichel has joined #tt