IRC log of tt on 2017-05-11

Timestamps are in UTC.

14:02:51 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #tt
14:02:51 [RRSAgent]
logging to
14:02:53 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs public
14:02:53 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #tt
14:02:55 [trackbot]
Zakim, this will be TTML
14:02:55 [Zakim]
ok, trackbot
14:02:56 [trackbot]
Meeting: Timed Text Working Group Teleconference
14:02:56 [trackbot]
Date: 11 May 2017
14:03:11 [dae]
Present+ dae
14:04:52 [nigel]
Present+ Glenn, Nigel, Andreas, Pierre
14:04:57 [nigel]
Regrets: Thierry
14:06:36 [nigel]
Regrets+ Mike
14:06:41 [nigel]
scribe: nigel
14:06:43 [nigel]
Chair: Nigel
14:06:46 [nigel]
Topic: This meeting
14:07:31 [nigel]
Present+ David_Ronca
14:09:08 [nigel]
Nigel: [goes through agenda points]. Any other business or specific points to raise?
14:09:20 [nigel]
Pierre: Deprioritise TPAC for this meeting, prioritise TTML issues.
14:10:48 [nigel]
group: [no other business to raise]
14:11:00 [nigel]
Nigel: Okay, in that case I think we can skip TPAC today unless anyone has any
14:11:09 [nigel]
.. urgent changes to the survey responses listed in the agenda.
14:11:44 [nigel]
Topic: TTML issue assignment and progress tracking.
14:11:54 [nigel]
Nigel: Can we timebox this to 15 minutes maximum?
14:12:32 [David]
David has joined #tt
14:12:50 [nigel]
Nigel: Are there any issues anyone wants to discuss prior to taking on?
14:13:10 [nigel]
Pierre: I plan to start on TTML1 issues.
14:13:21 [nigel]
Nigel: Do you want to raise any specific issues to work on, or deal with them offline?
14:13:56 [nigel]
Pierre: They're ones that I have already discussed, no need to discuss them further
14:13:58 [nigel]
.. now.
14:14:19 [nigel]
Dae: Does anyone think any of the unassigned TTML2 issues need to be resolved
14:14:23 [nigel]
.. before wide review?
14:14:26 [nigel]
Pierre: All of them.
14:14:43 [nigel]
David_Ronca: Here's an example - a comment about moving Ruby into elements.
14:15:00 [nigel]
Dae: Or #259, which is an editorial assigned, so it might not need to be resolved
14:15:07 [nigel]
.. before wide review.
14:15:17 [nigel]
Pierre: If they're editorial then we should just deal with them. If they need to be
14:15:31 [nigel]
.. deferred we can do that now. Fixing the document later will be more expensive.
14:16:51 [atai]
atai has joined #tt
14:17:16 [atai]
14:17:53 [nigel]
ack atai
14:19:00 [nigel]
David_Ronca: At this point I think we're trying to target a June 30 WR. To reinforce
14:19:16 [nigel]
.. Pierre's point why can't we just resolve these issues? If they can be resolved they
14:19:25 [nigel]
.. should be resolved. We should try to make WR as clean as possible in the next
14:19:29 [nigel]
.. month and a half.
14:20:05 [nigel]
Andreas: I also reviewed 50-60% of the issues - there are a lot so June is ambitious.
14:20:08 [dae]
14:20:20 [nigel]
.. In general I agree with Pierre and David that the HR comments on i18n should be
14:20:32 [nigel]
.. dealt with. I think that any review feedback has to be given high priority in general.
14:20:43 [nigel]
.. If you look at Richard's comments he read the spec very carefully and made some
14:21:02 [nigel]
.. comments so I think we should put the effort in to find a solution that the reviewer
14:21:17 [nigel]
.. is fine with. Apart from that, a lot of Richard's comments were about Ruby and
14:21:31 [nigel]
.. some quite complex issues introduced in TTML2 and from my view it certainly
14:21:38 [nigel]
.. needs Glenn's involvement on those.
14:21:41 [nigel]
ack dae
14:21:55 [nigel]
Dae: I looked at all the open unassigned issues and took the ones I thought I could
14:22:17 [nigel]
.. take care of or could resolve before WR. I thought #259 was not critical or I could
14:23:02 [nigel]
.. not handle it. If everyone else took the same approach then we can assume that
14:23:47 [nigel]
.. all the unassigned issues are those that nobody can resolve.
14:23:58 [nigel]
Nigel: No, please do not assign yourself all the issues you might be able to handle,
14:24:23 [nigel]
.. because that just blocks others from taking them on. Assign yourself an issue if
14:24:28 [nigel]
.. you're about to work on it.
14:24:42 [nigel]
Dae: Well #259 may be deferrable.
14:24:57 [nigel]
Pierre: I'd like more time to prepare before deciding to defer any issues.
14:25:11 [nigel]
Glenn: I think we should move to considering issues. As to #259, which is a question,
14:25:22 [nigel]
.. we can simply respond to the question (and say yes) and close the issue.
14:25:32 [nigel]
.. I am qualified to deal with all open issues, but my time is limited so I have to
14:25:44 [nigel]
.. prioritise. I agree that if we can resolve all HR comments then we should without
14:25:54 [nigel]
.. it delaying our proposed schedule, but at some point we may need to push things
14:26:02 [nigel]
.. back. It's too early to make a general policy about this.
14:26:24 [nigel]
Nigel: My original question is: Are there any issues that anyone is considering picking
14:26:36 [nigel]
.. up but wants to discuss?
14:26:40 [nigel]
Pierre: Not for me.
14:27:06 [nigel]
Glenn: I can pull my name off issues that I'm not working on right at the moment.
14:27:10 [nigel]
Nigel: That would be helpful.
14:27:19 [nigel]
Glenn: It was not my intention to prevent anyone else from working on them.
14:27:21 [nigel]
Nigel: Thank you.
14:28:01 [nigel]
Topic: TTML1 & TTML2 issues, actions, PRs, editorial actions etc
14:28:44 [nigel]
Nigel: Thank you Pierre for sending that additional list of issues. How we close issues
14:28:56 [nigel]
.. is we address them with pull requests, so I would like to review the open ones
14:29:07 [nigel]
.. first, to see if we have consensus to merge, and then look at the issues next.
14:29:16 [nigel]
.. By the way Pierre's list was on top of the list that was already in the agenda.
14:29:52 [nigel]
.. There are no open pull requests on TTML1.
14:29:58 [nigel]
.. There are 2 on TTML2.
14:30:15 [nigel]
.. They are both related to #271:
14:30:52 [nigel]
-> Metadata examples do not include xml:lang (editorial)
14:31:10 [nigel]
Nigel: Due to comments on Pierre's initial pull request, I proposed an alternate
14:31:50 [nigel]
.. resolution in
14:32:01 [nigel]
-> Issue 0271 xml lang metadata examples take 2
14:32:23 [atai]
14:33:59 [nigel]
Glenn: I think this is best resolved simply by adding a note to ttm:item to say that
14:34:09 [nigel]
.. xml:lang can be used and doing nothing. The problem with the new proposed
14:34:20 [nigel]
.. examples is that they are not in the language section. Or we could put a new note
14:34:51 [nigel]
.. or section in §8.2.8 xml:lang, where it is already stated that you can put it on
14:34:59 [nigel]
.. metadata vocabulary as a subset of core vocabulary.
14:36:02 [nigel]
.. Putting a small note in §14.1.6 ttm:item isn't necessary because it is explicitly
14:36:05 [nigel]
.. permitted in the syntax.
14:36:13 [nigel]
.. I don't know if we need to add anything.
14:36:22 [atai]
14:36:46 [nigel]
Pierre: I'm fairly certain that this is already done in the text, so the question is how
14:36:48 [nigel]
.. we can resolve it.
14:37:01 [nigel]
Andreas: We need to consider that this comes from i18n (Addison) so naturally they
14:37:39 [nigel]
.. are looking at that point and their comment indicates that the labelling with
14:37:52 [nigel]
.. languages of text and content is insufficient and should be given higher priority.
14:38:07 [nigel]
.. So regardless of whether it is actually the core thing being talked about in the document
14:38:18 [nigel]
.. it should be there. Although it is optional it is better to give readers clearer signals
14:38:33 [nigel]
.. to add this information, while on the content element it is clearer, for the metadata
14:38:44 [nigel]
.. it is not that clear and it does not hurt to add that extra information. To deal with
14:38:53 [nigel]
.. this comment it would be good to add this simple example.
14:39:07 [nigel]
Glenn: There's a very simple reason, which is that it pollutes the example. The
14:39:19 [nigel]
.. examples do not need to be complete. We don't have any reason to add a lang
14:39:31 [nigel]
.. tag to the example. If it helps the reader we can add a note to say it could be
14:39:35 [nigel]
.. placed there if desired.
14:39:56 [nigel]
Pierre: I'm sympathetic to that argument, but in this case it is being responsive
14:40:05 [atai]
14:40:06 [nigel]
.. without negatively impacting the document.
14:41:40 [nigel]
Nigel: My comment
14:42:11 [nigel]
.. was to add both a note and the examples, and that got a +1 from the issue
14:42:30 [nigel]
.. raiser Richard. I can add a note to the PR if that helps.
14:43:13 [nigel]
Glenn: I will add a note to the pull request explaining what my concern would be.
14:43:15 [nigel]
Nigel: Thank you.
14:44:07 [nigel]
Nigel: Does that mean that we have consensus to close with regrets Pierre's original
14:44:11 [nigel]
.. pull request #301?
14:44:14 [nigel]
Glenn: Sounds good to me.
14:44:36 [nigel]
Nigel: Is everyone else happy to go with the pull request that adds a note and a separate
14:44:38 [nigel]
.. example?
14:44:45 [nigel]
group: [silence]
14:44:51 [nigel]
Nigel: I'll take that as assent.
14:45:39 [dae]
Nigel are you on audio?
14:46:24 [glenn]
glenn has joined #tt
14:47:19 [pal]
pal has joined #tt
14:50:15 [pal]
topic: #268
14:50:26 [pal]
glenn: CSS3 does not support 'auto'
14:50:56 [glenn]
Group decides to mark as works for me and close without action. CSS3 WM does not support an 'auto' value.
14:51:45 [pal]
consensus: WG believes it is not a requirement for TTML2. Close as Works For Me.
14:55:46 [pal]
topic: #263
14:56:15 [pal]
consensus: problem stated by commenter is already addressed. Closes as Works for Me.
14:57:29 [pal]
topic #253
14:57:52 [pal]
no objection from the WG to resolution as-is
15:02:01 [pal]
topic: #141
15:02:07 [pal]
defer until Nigel attends
15:02:18 [pal]
topic: #128
15:02:24 [pal]
defer until Nigel attends
15:02:34 [pal]
topic: #274
15:04:18 [pal]
AI: Dae to bug Richard Ishida and Glenn Adams
15:06:01 [nigel]
nigel has joined #tt
15:06:17 [pal]
topic: #189
15:06:39 [pal]
need an assignee
15:06:58 [pal]
glenn: very complex to specify. suggest deferring.
15:07:44 [pal]
atai: new feature request. agree with glenn.
15:09:54 [nigel]
Nigel: Apologies for the large outage from me, problems here.
15:09:59 [nigel]
Pierre: #141
15:10:10 [nigel]
-> Embedded graphics don't fully meet requirement
15:10:36 [nigel]
Pierre: Nigel do you agree that the requirement is wrong?
15:10:47 [nigel]
Nigel: I don't see how it is possible to guarantee that any text present is the correct
15:11:44 [nigel]
.. text. You can require some text to be present syntactically or semantically but
15:11:51 [nigel]
.. the requirement as it's stated goes too far.
15:12:00 [nigel]
Glenn: Authorial requirements are not supposed to be covered.
15:12:08 [nigel]
Nigel: I agree it looks like an authorial requirement.
15:12:49 [nigel]
Pierre: So that cannot be specified.
15:12:56 [nigel]
Nigel: So the action is to fix the requirement?
15:13:14 [nigel]
Pierre: I'm concerned about spending any time revising those decade old requirements.
15:14:26 [nigel]
Nigel: I don't have a problem making a point edit to the requirements and
15:14:30 [nigel]
.. revising the spec to match.
15:14:44 [nigel]
Glenn: I would propose to add a note to Annex M to say that those requirements
15:14:47 [nigel]
.. are not being updated.
15:14:59 [nigel]
Pierre: I see a hard time updating the group note on requirements because that will
15:15:04 [nigel]
.. require review at least by me.
15:15:34 [nigel]
Nigel: are you saying we don't need a requirements doc?
15:15:48 [nigel]
Pierre: No it would have been great to revisit those requirements, but now we have
15:16:02 [nigel]
.. a choice to reopen requirements and go down that path, or just say the document
15:16:11 [nigel]
.. is historical and not necessarily accurate and just move on.
15:18:10 [nigel]
Nigel: I certainly did check back on the requirements probably back in 2015, and am
15:18:22 [nigel]
.. fairly confident that they are mostly correct and relevant.
15:18:34 [nigel]
.. Is the action now to mark up the annex for this requirement to say that although
15:18:53 [nigel]
.. it is not met fully, add a note that we do not impose authorial requirements via
15:19:03 [nigel]
.. the specification here, so in that sense the requirement is not correctly formed.
15:19:13 [nigel]
Glenn: That would work for me. I don't think we need to produce an errata document
15:19:16 [nigel]
.. for those requirements.
15:19:18 [nigel]
Pierre: +1
15:19:32 [nigel]
Pierre: Can I assign this to you Nigel?
15:19:35 [nigel]
Nigel: Yes you can!
15:19:36 [nigel]
Pierre: done.
15:19:39 [nigel]
Nigel: Thank you!
15:19:48 [nigel]
Pierre: The next one was #128.
15:20:01 [nigel]
-> The uniqueness of xml:id needs to be broken for some uses of condition
15:23:40 [nigel]
Nigel: As far as I'm concerned this is a big issue, with condition not really being
15:24:16 [nigel]
.. usable in the way that a lot of people would want to use it - it could be a really
15:24:40 [nigel]
.. powerful feature that is hobbled at the moment. I want to make sure that a
15:25:04 [nigel]
.. workable pattern is clear so that people can use it successfully. It looks like that
15:25:14 [nigel]
.. needs some changes to the way that the <set> element works.
15:25:17 [nigel]
Glenn: I care about this also.
15:25:23 [nigel]
Pierre: Can I assign this to you Nigel?
15:25:24 [nigel]
Nigel: Yes.
15:25:29 [nigel]
Glenn: I think we need to take this offline.
15:25:35 [nigel]
Nigel: Ok happy to do that.
15:25:53 [nigel]
Pierre: The next is #189
15:26:08 [nigel]
-> Add support for adjacent background area merging
15:26:22 [nigel]
Pierre: I think Glenn's position on that is it is very complex to specify, and proposes
15:26:28 [nigel]
.. to defer it.
15:26:36 [nigel]
Glenn: The proposal is to defer to
15:27:05 [nigel]
Nigel: do we have rounded borders now?
15:27:38 [nigel]
Glenn: This is about background areas, and rounded borders clip them.
15:27:50 [nigel]
Nigel: So we can round backgrounds now?
15:28:04 [nigel]
Glenn: Yes, we can.
15:30:16 [nigel]
Glenn: It is not specified what the border radii apply to, so I think it is implementation
15:30:33 [nigel]
.. dependent which of the first three options in
15:30:49 [nigel]
.. is presented, and any of them could be legal. I don't think CSS 3 really helps on
15:30:51 [nigel]
.. this situation either.
15:31:17 [nigel]
Nigel: Okay I need to look at that some more.
15:31:47 [nigel]
.. I would expect the background on the span to be the thing subject to the border
15:31:56 [nigel]
.. rounding, so the first example would be what is expected.
15:32:03 [nigel]
Glenn: I wouldn't disagree that may be the case.
15:32:29 [nigel]
Nigel: One option would be just to remove border-radii - does anyone need it?
15:33:02 [nigel]
Andreas: What is the problem in keeping it?
15:33:56 [nigel]
Glenn: One resolution of this would be to add two examples, with the behaviours
15:34:06 [atai]
15:34:08 [nigel]
.. with respect to p and span in TTML2. That would be fine with me, and then if
15:34:19 [nigel]
.. we want then merging background areas could be a follow-on step.
15:34:56 [nigel]
Nigel: At least the examples will help authors understand what they will get, so if
15:35:04 [nigel]
.. they don't want it then I guess they'll have to lump it.
15:35:11 [nigel]
Glenn: Would you be prepared to create a PR for this Nigel?
15:35:14 [nigel]
Nigel: Yes that's fine.
15:36:38 [nigel]
Nigel: I've added a note to #189.
15:36:46 [nigel]
Glenn: I've assigned it to you Nigel.
15:37:02 [nigel]
Pierre: That completes everything we had on the back-burner.
15:38:39 [nigel]
Nigel: Okay thanks for going through those issues while I was off the audio call.
15:39:01 [nigel]
.. Now how about #224 and #235?
15:39:11 [nigel]
15:39:17 [nigel]
15:40:44 [nigel]
Nigel: Sorry for the confusion, let's look at TTML1 #235.
15:41:35 [nigel]
Pierre: I think in TTML1 the processing is unambiguous so some tabs are kept and
15:41:45 [nigel]
.. there's no definition for what they look like. We could recommend that they look
15:41:56 [nigel]
.. like something, and recommend authors don't use it, but we can't do much more.
15:42:09 [nigel]
Glenn: I've pinged Steve and Tony and they haven't responded. So my understanding
15:42:32 [nigel]
.. is that we're talking about what happens with tabs when xml:space="default" and
15:42:41 [nigel]
.. there's a horizontal tab at the beginning of a line.
15:43:06 [nigel]
.. Regardless of xml:space the presentation semantics of tab are not defined in TTML
15:43:31 [nigel]
.. - for xml:space="default" it's not clear from XSL-FO if that's mapped to space
15:43:45 [nigel]
.. during the refinement process or not. There are two technical questions, one about
15:44:01 [nigel]
.. the refinement process and the second is if it is not mapped to space then what
15:44:10 [nigel]
.. does it mean for presentation. I agree with Pierre's comment that we should
15:44:27 [nigel]
.. recommend that author's should not use a tab in any case, regardless of xml:space.
15:44:41 [nigel]
Pierre: Yes. and if we want to be helpful, we could recommend that processors turn
15:44:57 [nigel]
.. tabs into spaces which would lead to what most people expect I think, in TTML1.
15:45:19 [nigel]
Glenn: "A preferred way for implementations to handle this is blah blah".
15:45:23 [nigel]
Pierre: That would work for me.
15:45:57 [nigel]
Andreas: I think the handling of xml:space is specified in XSL-FO but the base spec
15:46:08 [nigel]
.. that defines it is the XML standard itself. Whatever we do it needs to be inline with
15:46:11 [nigel]
.. what the XML standard says.
15:46:28 [nigel]
Pierre: Would it be inconsistent with XML to recommend weakly that implementations
15:46:33 [nigel]
.. treat tab as space?
15:46:44 [nigel]
Glenn: This is not to do with the XML spec, perhaps the XSL-FO spec, but my position
15:46:50 [nigel]
.. is that XSL-FO is ambiguous on this.
15:46:58 [nigel]
Andreas: I will double check that.
15:47:11 [nigel]
.. If there is an issue I will comment on the proposed wording.
15:48:01 [nigel]
Pierre: Glenn, should we open a pull request for TTML1?
15:48:11 [nigel]
Glenn: I would suggest opening a pull request with a proposed note. I will do that.
15:48:28 [nigel]
Pierre: I might suggest that in IMSC 1.0.1 we add a note pointing to this note in
15:48:32 [nigel]
.. TTML1.
15:48:41 [nigel]
Nigel: OK now what about TTML2?
15:49:18 [nigel]
.. I think the easiest proposal is to say that a tab character has no presentation effect
15:49:26 [nigel]
.. whatsoever.
15:49:35 [nigel]
Glenn: For TTML2 I would take the TTML1 note and make it normative.
15:49:48 [nigel]
Andreas: Another useful resource for clues about intended behaviour is to look at
15:50:04 [nigel]
.. XSLT (or maybe XPATH), which was part of XSL-FO a long time ago.
15:50:20 [nigel]
.. As far as I can remember if there's no xml:space="preserve" the default behaviour
15:50:29 [nigel]
.. is to normalise tabs to spaces.
15:50:43 [nigel]
Glenn: XSLT is not formally part of XSL-FO, so the focus should be on what XSL-FO
15:50:55 [nigel]
.. does. If we have time it might be worth looking at what FOP and Antenna House
15:51:02 [nigel]
.. does, but we don't have to do the same as them.
15:51:16 [nigel]
Pierre: What does CSS do with presentation of tabs?
15:51:35 [nigel]
Glenn: That's more complicated. After CSS2.1 and later it maps a tab to tabstops that
15:52:07 [nigel]
.. are nominally 8 spaces across. So "xxx[tab]y" means the "y" appears 8 spaces across.
15:52:13 [nigel]
.. I don't think we want to adopt the CSS behaviour.
15:52:27 [nigel]
Nigel: Can we adopt my proposal that a tab has no presentation effect at all?
15:52:43 [nigel]
Glenn: I would prefer to map to a single space rather than nothing, for security
15:52:57 [nigel]
.. reasons, Invisible content can be used for phishing etc. as a general principle.
15:53:17 [nigel]
.. For example you can create URLs with invisible character in them which mislead
15:53:23 [nigel]
.. the browser user.
15:53:35 [nigel]
Nigel: Okay, mapping a tab to a single space would work for me.
15:53:43 [nigel]
Glenn: That would be my default proposal for presenting a tab.
15:54:08 [nigel]
Pierre: I think we should start there and I'll review.
15:54:31 [nigel]
Nigel: This needs a new TTML2 issue.
15:54:56 [nigel]
Glenn: I consider it part of #302. That's supposed to incorporate further changes
15:54:59 [nigel]
.. between TTML1 and TTML2.
15:55:54 [nigel]
Nigel: I think this sufficiently different from the TTML1 issue that it needs a new TTML2 issue.
15:56:09 [nigel]
Nigel: I will add a note to the TTML1 issue that is currently assigned to Glenn, #235.
15:56:25 [glenn]
See for CSS2.1 tab handling rules.
15:57:18 [nigel]
Nigel: I'd like to move to the Audio Description requirements. Pierre, you made the
15:57:34 [nigel]
.. point that we as a group have not been through those requirements.
15:57:53 [nigel]
Pierre: I wasn't at the Web and TV IG/TTWG joint meeting. I don't really have an
15:58:32 [nigel]
.. issue with the requirements but in the context of distribution I would like to review
15:58:35 [nigel]
.. that face to face.
15:59:12 [nigel]
Nigel: OK that sounds like a discussion of a distribution profile for AD, which I'd be
15:59:29 [nigel]
.. happy to add to the agenda at TPAC, but I would also like to continue with the
15:59:33 [nigel]
.. existing TTML2 work.
16:01:47 [nigel]
Glenn: How I've been drafting it is a neutral addition to the existing semantics around
16:01:58 [nigel]
.. audio inclusion in TTML2 - I have not mentioned audio description explicitly.
16:02:19 [nigel]
Nigel: We're out of time for today, and I see that the audio call has dropped off for
16:02:49 [nigel]
.. some reason too, so let's adjourn until next week. [adjourns meeting]
16:02:53 [nigel]
rrsagent, make minutes
16:02:53 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate nigel
16:13:09 [nigel]
scribe+ pal
16:13:11 [nigel]
rrsagent, make minutes
16:13:11 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate nigel
16:13:32 [atai]
atai has left #tt
16:14:15 [nigel]
s/scribe+ pal/
16:14:19 [nigel]
rrsagent, make minutes
16:14:19 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate nigel
16:14:42 [nigel]
ScribeOptions: -final -noEmbedDiagnostics
16:14:43 [nigel]
rrsagent, make minutes
16:14:43 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate nigel
17:01:44 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #tt