14:00:22 RRSAgent has joined #tt 14:00:22 logging to http://www.w3.org/2017/04/27-tt-irc 14:00:24 RRSAgent, make logs public 14:00:24 Zakim has joined #tt 14:00:26 Zakim, this will be TTML 14:00:26 ok, trackbot 14:00:27 Meeting: Timed Text Working Group Teleconference 14:00:27 Date: 27 April 2017 14:01:28 tmichel has joined #tt 14:01:40 Present: Glenn, Nigel, Mike, Andreas 14:01:44 Regrets: Thierry 14:01:46 scribe: nigel 14:01:48 Chair: Nigel 14:02:37 yes I am joining ... 14:02:44 Regrets- Thierry 14:02:48 Present+ Thierry 14:02:55 s/yes I am joining .../ 14:03:45 Present+ Pierre 14:04:21 Present+ David_Ronca 14:05:05 Topic: This Meeting 14:05:47 atai has joined #tt 14:06:37 Nigel: Today we have TPAC, IMSC, TTML, HDR in PNG. 14:06:53 David_Ronca: [requests TTML2 at the head of the meeting for scheduling reasons] 14:07:32 Nigel: Anything else for the agenda, or AOB? 14:07:48 group: [no AOB] 14:08:11 Topic: TTML 14:09:12 David_R has joined #tt 14:09:25 Nigel: First let's look at progress tracking. 14:10:12 .. First thank you Glenn for assigning yourself to issues. The number you're assigned to is 14:10:26 .. quite a bit larger than the number of branches you have open. What's happening there? 14:10:40 Glenn: I've either begun work on them or thought about them and have a plan. If someone 14:11:00 .. wants to work on one and I don't have a branch for it then coordinate with me and let 14:11:14 .. me know. We can have more than one assignee for any issue. 14:11:18 Nigel: That's true we can. 14:11:32 David_Ronca: For those issues you have begun working on but do not have a branch for it 14:11:50 .. yet is there any reason why you wouldn't unassign yourself so people can filter on 14:11:52 .. assignee? 14:12:31 Glenn: If someone wants to take one on then just coordinate with me. 14:12:44 Nigel: Ok, the flip side of that is that if you're assigned to issues then that will likely put 14:13:59 .. other people off, and that means the Group will expect some short term work on it. 14:14:11 Glenn: There are 5-10 issues with no assignee that I'm less interested in, so people should 14:14:14 .. start with that first. 14:14:46 David_Ronca: What I'm interested in most is not who resolves an issue but when they are 14:15:23 .. resolved. I see 9 issues unassigned and marked as milestone TTML2WR, and 48 assigned 14:15:46 .. to Glenn. Glenn, for the issues that are open and assigned, is there any way to put an 14:15:51 .. expected close date on them? 14:17:41 Glenn: I haven't looked at them with that level of granularity. 14:18:23 Nigel: I think the important thing is that we have pull requests open for all those issues, 14:18:29 .. as the first step towards issue closure. 14:18:52 .. We talked about doing this by the end of May for all issues for the WR - I've had feedback 14:19:07 .. this week that before concluding on the WR we should review all open issues so that we 14:19:15 .. do not defer without due consideration, which is reasonable I think. 14:19:28 Glenn: Some pull requests cover multiple issues. 14:19:48 Nigel: Please could you mention all the issues in the Pull Request description so we can track those? 14:20:51 Glenn: I can add links but it may be difficult to uncover the information. 14:21:06 Nigel: Has anyone else assigned themselves any issues? 14:21:30 Pierre: My plan is to assign myself all the horizontal review comment issues and to resolve 14:21:46 .. them before wide review. That can either be by pull request or to defer until never or later. 14:22:01 Nigel: Okay, will you pick them up one at a time? 14:22:17 Pierre: Yes, I'll review them, hopefully with Richard, and maybe close some of them in parallel 14:22:42 .. or some sequentially. I don't plan to assign myself to them all at once. 14:22:57 David_Ronca: Due to other commitments I haven't managed to meet internally, but in the 14:23:15 .. next week we'll all be back and will review and see what we can assign internally to the team. 14:23:32 Pierre: I have a question re: 14:23:39 -> https://github.com/w3c/ttml2/issues/274 Add an illustration of pinyin for ruby align 14:24:04 Pierre: There, Glenn has a comment, so you have an opinion and have thought about it, but 14:24:12 .. you have not assigned it to yourself. Is it okay for me to proceed? 14:24:24 Glenn: Yes, please do. I did not try to assign to myself any of the i18n comments from the 14:24:32 .. recent review, because they're not on the WR milestone. 14:24:35 Pierre: Why is that? 14:25:04 Glenn: Because they came in from outside the group so I consider it part of the preliminary 14:25:15 .. wide review comments. 14:25:47 .. If I had no other issues to work on I would probably take these on. 14:26:06 Pierre: There are other issues that other people can handle that don't relate to complex 14:26:12 .. script layout issues. 14:26:27 Glenn: Some of those others are in areas that I do have deep expertise on. 14:26:37 David_Ronca: This is also something that Dae has worked on. 14:27:26 .. How about we set a target for assigning issues? 14:28:12 Nigel: I'd like to treat this more like weekly sprints so please assign yourself issues on a 14:28:31 .. week by week basis so that we can track the curve as the weeks go by and not block 14:28:44 .. others from picking up issues because they're already assigned, if that is ok. 14:28:53 David_Ronca: That's fine, I'll pick that up with the team next week. 14:29:27 Nigel: Can anyone else let us know now about any issues they can pick up and work on 14:29:30 .. over the next week? 14:29:41 Pierre: What about the TTML1 issues? 14:30:00 Nigel: They're in scope too because they generally apply to both TTML1 and TTML2. 14:30:05 Pierre: Here's a simple one: 14:30:17 -> https://github.com/w3c/ttml2/issues/215 tts:extent="auto" vs tts:extent="100% 100%" 14:30:50 Nigel: That's assigned to Glenn, and he said he is rewriting that text anyway. 14:30:54 Pierre: That was in November. 14:31:07 Glenn: On this particular one I don't actually agree with the proposed change. Auto is a 14:31:23 .. proxy we often use to express a default without repeating the definition of the default 14:31:35 .. everywhere that proxy is used. I don't think there's any technical reason not to use auto 14:31:52 .. in place of 100% 100%. Also if we use auto then it's easier to change what that means in 14:31:59 .. one place, rather than everywhere it is used. 14:32:24 Nigel: If that's your thought process it would be helpful to add it to the issue. 14:33:01 Glenn: Basically I consider this issue to be a request for early binding of the extent. 14:33:45 Nigel: In this case maybe the preferred choice is to close the issue without any change. 14:33:58 Glenn: The TTML1/TTML2 issue is an important one. In principle we should have resolved 14:34:31 .. all the open TTML1 issues and incorporate those resolutions into TTML2 before PR, 14:34:53 .. would anyone disagree with that? 14:34:59 Nigel: I think that's already agreed. 14:35:06 Pierre: Agreed. 14:35:17 Glenn: I just want to point out we don't have tracking issues for every TTML2 issue that has 14:36:07 .. a TTML1 issue, so there is more work than is indicated by the currently open issues. 14:36:21 Nigel: How should we handle that, open tracking issues, or add the TTML1 issues to the set 14:36:24 .. we are tracking for TTML2? 14:36:58 Glenn: Or we could open an umbrella issue for TTML2. 14:37:17 Nigel: That could simply consist of a list of TTML1 issue references. 14:37:27 Glenn: I think it would be useful to have that umbrella issue at least to begin with. 14:37:48 Nigel: Shall I create that umbrella issue? 14:37:51 Glenn: Thanks. 14:38:02 David_Ronca: I have drop off now - thanks a lot guys. 14:38:19 Pierre: How about: 14:38:43 -> https://github.com/w3c/ttml2/issues/219 Step 10.4.4.2(6)(a) does not apply to textDecoration 14:39:01 Pierre: This is discussed and agreed, really narrow, has had no movement since London, so 14:39:11 .. that would be a perfect candidate in my mind for anyone in the group to take on. 14:39:28 Glenn: As I already mentioned, if you would like to add yourself to an issue assigned to me, 14:39:34 .. feel free to do that. 14:40:33 Nigel: can anyone take this on? 14:40:46 Glenn: We need to resolve this in TTML1 - coincidentally it is #219 in TTML1. 14:41:05 .. This comes under the PR for TTML1. 14:41:13 Pierre: I'd like to broaden the set of folk working on stuff. 14:41:29 .. I'd get to it eventually but I'm going to prioritise the HR comments. 14:41:36 Glenn: I'll get to it eventually as well. 14:41:53 Action: nigel Create an umbrella issue for TTML1 issues in TTML2 14:41:59 Created ACTION-496 - Create an umbrella issue for ttml1 issues in ttml2 [on Nigel Megitt - due 2017-05-04]. 14:42:55 Nigel: OK let's take that general approach - nobody is coming forward for this now but I 14:43:08 .. guess some folks' ears are burning but they want to think about their workload and look 14:43:14 .. at the open issues and see what they can take on. 14:43:38 .. We'll come back to this again next week, and obviously anyone can assign themself to an 14:43:41 .. issue in the meantime. 14:43:51 Nigel: The next thing to do is to review the existing open pull requests. 14:44:29 -> https://github.com/w3c/ttml1/pull/233 Clarify application of padding (#221) 14:44:43 Glenn: Andreas and I have gone back and forth on the utility of adding implementation detail. 14:44:57 .. I agree that we could say a little more because it doesn't hurt to contextualise the subject 14:45:10 .. with regards to the XSL-FO model. I'm not prepared to go all the way to the level of detail 14:45:15 .. that Andreas originally proposed. 14:46:18 .. Looking at today's comment, Andreas said that how padding is applied diverges from XSL-FO. 14:46:29 .. I don't agree with that because, although XSL-FO does have some semantics regarding 14:46:44 .. regions and page layout semantics, the TTML definition of region is entirely different. 14:46:56 .. Maybe we need to point that out, in any case we are defining something different and 14:47:07 q+ 14:47:12 .. saying how it maps to XSL-FO, in §9.3.3 Synchronic Document Construction. 14:47:27 .. What it might be useful to do, as a subset of what Andreas proposed, is to add a note that 14:47:42 .. clarifies that the extent of region maps to the allocation rectangle of the block area that 14:48:00 .. is generated by the block container to which the TTML region element is mapped. 14:48:45 .. See also my comments on https://github.com/w3c/ttml1/pull/233#issuecomment-297637021 14:49:18 .. In earlier comments I think Pierre had asked the question of whether extent maps to 14:49:29 .. padding rectangle or content rectangle, and I commented that it is neither, but to the 14:49:43 .. allocation rectangle from which those other rectangles are derived. I'm prepared to add 14:49:55 .. an additional comment with less detail than what Andreas asked for but says what I just 14:50:03 .. said but does attempt to clarify that mapping. 14:50:06 ack atai 14:50:19 Andreas: In response to the first point, I'm still of the opinion that on this one area we 14:50:31 .. really diverge from XSL-FO and that makes it hard to explain how we relate to XSL-FO and 14:50:45 .. also CSS. I was not referring to the region element in XSL-FO, but to the way block areas 14:50:59 .. are handled. The way TTML does it, defining the allocation rectangle and then applying 14:51:14 .. inset space has no correspondence in XSL-FO. You cannot define the width and height 14:51:25 .. of an allocation rectangle in XSL-FO, which makes it hard to relate to and also tricky to 14:51:43 .. implement using CSS models and concepts. We both expressed our points, but hte most 14:51:55 .. important thing is that users get the right understanding. I'm happy with any change 14:52:09 .. that gives users the right understanding of how this works. 14:52:35 Nigel: Are you saying that Glenn's proposal would achieve that or not? 14:52:46 Andreas: As I mentioned, I would like input from other members of this Group too. 14:53:05 .. If we can explain how it works clearly without referencing the conceptual model then 14:53:15 .. I am happy with that, but I want to hear other opinions about it. 14:53:45 Glenn: I have an addendum to my opinion: another way to think about it is to posit the 14:53:58 .. existence of a container that the block container is a child of, and then have the extent 14:54:10 .. of the TTML region be assigned to the content rectangle of that posited outer shell 14:54:24 .. container. That can be done conceptually without actually having to generate such an 14:54:39 .. element in the flow object hierarchy. Or if one really wants to do that in XSL-FO there's 14:55:00 .. an element called staticContent that could potentially be used for that purpose. A common 14:55:13 .. use is for running headers and footers, except in XSL-FO the content is repeated on every 14:55:26 .. page, though the generated ISD outputs could be considered to be pages in the XSL-FO 14:55:30 .. sense, to make that leap of logic. 14:55:43 Andreas: I'm a bit worried that we make it even more complicated using a different solution. 14:56:17 .. There is a discussed and agreed label, so I assume that members have read the original 14:56:29 .. pull request and approved it. If we take on another edit then there must at least be some 14:56:39 .. feedback from the group expressing some kind of preference. 14:57:21 Pierre: TTML1 has text directly relating to XSL-FO. Couldn't the clarification be put there? 14:57:38 .. I understand that it might not be appropriate to put it far away from where it is defined. 14:57:50 .. Surely there should be a place to put it assuming it is not false? 14:58:06 Glenn: I don't know if it is false or not - we could certainly put the detail note in §9.3.3 14:58:23 .. where the allocation rectangle is defined. I think the current proposal is too detailed 14:58:34 .. and application specific and I'm not prepared to accept it. Different implementations can 14:58:39 .. do different things. 14:59:00 Andreas: I'm willing to accept the edited pull request from Glenn then. I read through it 14:59:18 .. and also with the test cases provided by Pierre today it might be enough to see how it 14:59:34 .. works. The trouble with XSL-FO is people might not be deeply into that, so its debatable 14:59:46 .. how helpful it is. For me, if we use Glenn's edit and then possibly add some more text to 15:00:04 .. clarify that extent corresponds to the allocation rectangle of the region then I'm fine with that. 15:00:20 Pierre: I'll file a separate issue because the same term "region area" is used for overflow and 15:00:38 .. I'm fairly certain that we want any clipping to occur on the inset content area. 15:00:53 Andreas: There are different areas, but if we do not clarify exactly which one we mean then 15:01:07 .. it is not clear which applies, so some additional wording would be helpful there. 15:01:21 Glenn: I assume that if clipping occurs then it is the content rectangle. 15:01:31 Pierre: I think that's what everyone assumes, so let's file an issue for that. 15:01:44 Glenn: I think I've heard a plan here to accept the pull request plus an additional note on 15:01:59 .. §9.3.3 right under the bit about TTML regions mapping to block containers, in which I 15:02:12 .. would say that it constrains the allocation rectangle. I can do that. First I will update the 15:02:25 .. pull request with a new commit on that branch adding that note, and if the group accepts 15:02:41 .. it then I'll go ahead and merge it. I'm asking that we pre-accept that so we don't need 15:02:45 .. another round of review. 15:03:00 Pierre: The process is you'll submit the PR and then there's a 3 day review. 15:03:06 Glenn: I'm asking for a quick merge. 15:03:11 Pierre: I need the 3 days. 15:03:15 Andreas: I do too. 15:03:45 Nigel: Thanks for the constructive conversation everyone. 15:04:18 Andreas: I have to drop off - I just want to check about the agenda saying 60 minutes? 15:04:34 atai has left #tt 15:05:09 Nigel: The first line in the agenda should say 120 not 60 - that's an oversight on my part, apologies. 15:05:15 Andreas: OK. [leaves] 15:05:21 Nigel: Let's take a 5 minute break... 15:05:38 rrsagent, make minutes 15:05:38 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/04/27-tt-minutes.html nigel 15:13:45 Glenn: I have one follow-up comment from before the break - I just want to remind us that 15:13:59 .. strictly editorial non-substantive changes do not require the 3 day period according to 15:14:05 .. the current process. 15:14:20 Pierre: I was not accusing you of being malicious by merging early, but for the point of 15:14:39 .. efficiency it is a lot more efficient to leave a review period and deal with comments rather 15:14:47 .. than open a new issue etc. 15:14:56 Glenn: My view is just the opposite about efficiency. 15:15:22 Nigel: Let's look at the next pull request: 15:15:31 -> https://github.com/w3c/ttml1/pull/238 Issue 0237 css2 reference 15:16:51 Glenn: I moved the reference to CSS2 to be in a Note and moved the CSS2 reference to the 15:17:02 .. Other references because it is clearly no longer possibly normative. 15:17:16 .. When it comes to merging this into TTML2 I need to re-review in case there are other 15:17:38 .. places where CSS2 has come in as a normative reference. 15:17:44 Nigel: Yes, it's worth doing that review. 15:19:52 Nigel: Looks good to me. 15:20:32 Glenn: This will merge into the ED of TTML1 and then I will propose an equivalent pull request 15:20:35 .. for TTML2. 15:21:26 Pierre: I will add a review approval too, to match the comment I made. 15:22:21 Nigel: With 2x LGTM you could probably merge this now but it would be fair in the process 15:22:24 .. to wait until tomorrow Glenn. 15:23:20 -> https://github.com/w3c/ttml2/pull/273 Issue 0203 add examples of ja features part 2 15:23:28 Nigel: This has been open since March, what's going on... 15:23:41 .. Okay we don't have Dae with us today, and the last status is that Richard Ishida was 15:23:53 .. looking at it. I will prompt him. 15:24:06 Glenn: This contains some examples of some of the new Ruby functionality particularly 15:24:19 .. Ruby overflow and Ruby Overhang and since I have not reviewed it I do not know if it 15:24:27 .. correct. I will first of all review it for correctness. 15:25:32 nigel: I've added a comment to the pull request. 15:26:00 -> https://github.com/w3c/ttml2/pull/294 Revised tts:luminanceGain 15:26:42 Nigel: I haven't had chance to review this yet but it would be helpful to review and merge 15:26:51 .. so I can merge the same fixes in to the other HDR pull request. 15:28:45 Glenn: It looks like that incorporates Nigel's comments. 15:28:54 Nigel: I see that, yes great, looks good. 15:29:50 Glenn: Can I go ahead and merge? 15:30:01 Nigel: If you've reviewed then it would be good to add that to the pull request. 15:30:22 Glenn: I've done that. 15:30:29 Nigel: I don't see why that can't be merged at this stage. Thank you. 15:30:40 Glenn: I'll do that after the call. 15:30:50 Nigel: Once you've done that then I'll update my follow-on pull request: 15:31:04 -> https://github.com/w3c/ttml2/pull/299 Issue #298 sRGB on HLG 15:31:42 Glenn: My only comment on that is that the newly added reference doesn't really match 15:31:54 .. the format that we've used with the other ISO references, for example it includes the 15:32:09 .. ISO reference within the title, whereas the others include only the name portion. The 15:32:22 .. other is that you've been extremely specific in the way you have referenced the ISO number 15:32:40 .. and the CIE number and the date, etc. and generally we have not added dates or tried 15:32:55 .. to be overly specific on these references. Mike raised an issue on this recently that might 15:32:57 .. bear on this point. 15:34:02 Nigel: That's: 15:34:14 -> https://github.com/w3c/ttml2/issues/293 reference versioning 15:34:50 Glenn: The first question is if we need both the ISO and the CIE references? 15:35:08 Nigel: I think so since the same document exists in both organisations. 15:35:22 Mike: Technically the CIE is a process document. They process jointly with ISO. 15:36:14 Glenn: I would suggest using the ISO reference, rather than the CIE. Also you've used the 15:36:24 .. key of CIE-XYZ. I like to keep those shorter. 15:36:31 Nigel: I'm happy to change the key to XYZ. 15:36:43 Glenn: If you do it that way you may be able to remove the CIE portion of the reference. 15:36:53 .. Also you refer to a specific year on the ISO document, where we don't generally do that. 15:37:06 .. For example we recently added CMAF without a year reference. 15:37:41 Mike: The first question is does W3C have a policy for what an unversioned reference means? 15:37:51 .. If not then you need to put the version of the reference in. 15:38:48 Thierry: I don't think W3C defines what an unversioned reference means. 15:39:04 Glenn: Operationally speaking it has always been understood to mean "the latest" but it is 15:39:18 .. not explicit. When Mike says that if there is no version then we must specify one. That 15:39:33 .. has not been the practice in W3C or in TTML. For example we don't specify years in 15:39:56 .. ISO specification references. If we create a new policy to reference versions then we are 15:40:01 .. going to have to change a lot of references. 15:40:20 Mike: Certainly in TTML2, there's a lot of water under the bridge in TTML1. I don't follow 15:40:31 .. your argument - we have a version of CSS2 for example that has been mentioned recently. 15:40:46 .. My poster-child for this is a SMPTE document that references UNIX tar and someone 15:41:03 .. blindly updated the year on the ANSI standard and in fact ANSI had entirely removed 15:41:14 .. tar from that particular standard. You never know what you will get in future versions. 15:41:42 Glenn: One question is if there is a stable link to a document. For W3C specifications we 15:42:02 .. generally use a dated link to the document on /TR, but HTML5 points to the unversioned 15:42:27 .. "latest" link in /TR. One of the issue is that some of the linked URLs are not necessarily 15:42:34 .. maintained by their organisations as stable URLs. 15:42:50 Mike: I think as a general rule no standards body (other than W3C or IETF) maintains 15:43:05 .. stable links. In fact it is quite difficult to get older versions of things. 15:43:28 Glenn: Another thing I find interesting is that for IMSC1 we discussed dot-dot vs dot 15:43:42 .. versions. Thierry mentioned that it is assumed that newer versions supersede older 15:43:55 .. versions automatically. That surprised me. I've never thought that. That might explain 15:44:06 .. why W3C has sometimes not put dated versions in, but that makes it a moving target 15:44:09 .. as you have pointed out. 15:44:21 Mike: Yes, at some point you will get into trouble with interoperability. 15:44:33 Glenn: For TTML2 we need to review all of the references and decide if we want to augment 15:45:09 .. them with version data. 15:45:22 Nigel: You could set a general rule of "the most recently published one at the time of 15:45:29 .. spec publication" but that would be hard to manage. 15:45:38 Mike: That's impossible. 15:45:50 Pierre: Yes that's too difficult. 15:46:03 .. The way to go is to use dated versions except where we specifically want to track changes, 15:46:07 .. for example for registries. 15:46:11 Mike: That makes sense. 15:46:30 Glenn: Maybe the resolution for #293 is to go through all the references and check them out. 15:46:41 .. That's not one that I assigned myself to. Maybe someone would like to do that. 15:46:52 Mike: If it is not the current version of the spec as it is today then I'm not sure how we go 15:47:07 .. about resolving that. For example with CSS2 vs CSS2.1 we know there is a difference and 15:47:31 .. there's a right answer. The thing that triggered it for me is documents I know about - I 15:47:39 .. can certainly fix those. I don't know about the W3C references. 15:47:54 Glenn: I'm looking at the W3C references in TTML2 and it looks as though all of them point 15:48:13 .. to a dated version, so that shouldn't need changing. I have always avoided the "latest" link. 15:48:41 Nigel: Can I assign this to you for those you can handle Mike? 15:48:53 Mike: Sure. For normative references especially we need to be specific. It may be as simple 15:49:14 .. as putting the date in. So I might be able to do this even for the W3C references if the 15:49:17 .. dates are already present. 15:50:30 Nigel: Ok I've changed the labels, added a comment and assigned that issue. 15:51:07 Nigel: For the pull request #299 Glenn please could you add those comments and I will 15:51:09 .. process them? 15:51:11 Glenn: Okay. 15:51:52 -> https://github.com/w3c/ttml2/pull/297 Issue 0296 inline block 15:52:15 Nigel: We don't really have time to cover this today, I have added some review comments 15:52:19 .. and asked a question. 15:53:10 Topic: TPAC 2017 planning. 15:53:24 Nigel: Note I have completed the survey for the group, with answers as described in the 15:53:34 .. agenda - please let me know if you think any of those answers need to be changed. 15:53:52 Topic: HDR in PNG 15:54:06 Pierre: How do we proceed to publishing that Note? 15:54:20 .. I have forwarded it to Chris Lilley and have not heard back so should we just put it up for 15:54:30 .. official review on the reflector, asking for review, and then we can go ahead? 15:54:36 Nigel: yes, that seems like a good way forward. 15:54:44 Glenn: And the audience for review is our working group? 15:55:12 Pierre: Correct. 15:55:28 Nigel: If anyone (in or out of this group) has an interest feel free to point them to it. 15:55:36 Glenn: We don't have an obligation for review for the Note. 15:55:48 Pierre: I'd suggest starting a review clock for this. 15:56:10 Nigel: When would you close the review? 15:56:22 Pierre: Two weeks from today - if anyone asks for more time then we can adjust. 15:56:28 .. That would be May 12th. 15:57:02 Nigel: Okay, I'll send out a request to the group. 15:57:08 Action-495? 15:57:08 Action-495 -- Thierry Michel to Update the ttwg homepage and publications pages for the new repos -- due 2017-04-20 -- OPEN 15:57:08 http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/tracker/actions/495 15:57:40 Thierry: I'll update those pages to reference the HDR in PNG document. 15:57:54 Nigel: I'd be very interested to know Chris Lilley's opinion too. 15:57:57 Thierry: I will ping him again. 15:58:04 Topic: IMSC 15:58:21 Nigel: I think the point to raise here is about CR exit criteria. 15:58:38 Pierre: Yes, I am also waiting for comments to come back. The baseline is only to test 15:58:54 .. the added features. I don't have a lineGap implementation. It might be nice to have a 15:59:01 .. vertical writing example too. 15:59:06 .. I will ask Andreas about that. 15:59:40 .. I don't expect a large test suite but it will be a challenge to generate the examples. 16:00:05 Nigel: I know we updated our gstreamer implementation to do lineGap but I do not know 16:00:09 .. if it does vertical writing. 16:01:14 Nigel: We had a liaison response today, available at https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-tt/2017Apr/0004.html 16:01:29 .. The sender requested member-only visibility. 16:02:15 Nigel: I should also have mentioned under TTML2 that there was some further TAG 16:02:36 .. discussion, at: 16:02:54 -> https://github.com/w3ctag/design-reviews/issues/138 Timed Text Markup Language 2 (TTML2) 16:04:25 Pierre: I might be able to point the commenter at IMSC.js for a practical example of the polyfill question. 16:05:01 Glenn: I would say that it is a subset, since practicality might be arguable. Not "the practical subset" but "a practical subset". 16:05:31 Nigel: I also want to acknowledge Pierre's message about the test suite - thank you for that. 16:07:55 Nigel: Thank you everyone, we are slightly over time today, apologies. [adjourns meeting] 16:07:59 rrsagent, make minutes 16:07:59 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/04/27-tt-minutes.html nigel 16:15:04 s/Ok, the flip side of that is that is that if/If 16:15:27 s/, and that means the Group/, and the flip side of that is that the Group 16:17:38 s/I have drop off now - thanks a lot guys/I have to drop off now - thanks a lot guys 16:19:10 s/but hte most/but the most 16:21:31 s/Let's take a 5 minute break.../Let's take a 5 minute break... [5 minutes elapses] ... and we're back 16:22:01 s/Other references/Other References 16:23:10 s/They process jointly with ISO/They publish jointly with ISO 16:25:35 rrsagent, make minutes 16:25:35 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/04/27-tt-minutes.html nigel 16:28:02 s/Ok, the flip side of that is that if/If 16:28:03 rrsagent, make minutes 16:28:03 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/04/27-tt-minutes.html nigel 16:28:48 ScribeOptions: -final -noEmbedDiagnostics 16:28:49 rrsagent, make minutes 16:28:49 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/04/27-tt-minutes.html nigel 16:58:54 Zakim has left #tt