14:02:02 RRSAgent has joined #tt 14:02:02 logging to http://www.w3.org/2017/06/15-tt-irc 14:02:04 RRSAgent, make logs public 14:02:04 Zakim has joined #tt 14:02:06 Zakim, this will be TTML 14:02:06 ok, trackbot 14:02:07 Meeting: Timed Text Working Group Teleconference 14:02:07 Date: 15 June 2017 14:02:14 Present: Nigel, Mike 14:02:45 Regrets: Andreas, Glenn 14:02:50 Chair: Nigel 14:02:53 scribe: nigel 14:03:12 Present+ Pierre 14:04:08 tmichel has joined #tt 14:05:13 Present+ Thierry 14:05:53 Topic: This meeting 14:06:56 Nigel: Today we need to move forward with IMSC and TTML. I will briefly mention TPAC. Any specific points to cover, or other business? 14:07:07 Mike: The IMSC 1 issue regarding SDP-US 14:07:22 Topic: TPAC 2017 14:07:46 Nigel: I've had confirmation from the newly re-chartered Media and Entertainment IG (was Web and TV) 14:08:01 .. that we can meet them jointly for 30 minutes on the Monday. 14:10:06 .. I proposed a draft agenda of an update on subtitle and caption work including TTML2, IMSC 1.0.1, industry adoption 14:10:16 .. Seek input on IMSC 2 requirements 14:10:28 .. Gauge interest in a possible profile of TTML2 for AD 14:10:37 .. plus any other topics of interest. 14:11:19 .. I suggested afternoon would be better than morning in case there's any last minute preparation to done. 14:11:34 action-497? 14:11:34 action-497 -- Nigel Megitt to Invite csswg to joint meeting at tpac 2017, with list of topics. -- due 2017-06-15 -- OPEN 14:11:34 http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/tracker/actions/497 14:11:42 Nigel: I haven't progressed this yet. 14:12:10 .. I will gather together the details as discussed last week and hopefully progress that in the next week. 14:12:30 .. Registration is now open, as are the preferred rates for hotels - early booking is recommended. 14:13:42 Topic: IMSC 14:13:49 action-498? 14:13:49 action-498 -- Nigel Megitt to Invite i18n to discuss imsc 1.0.1 issues -- due 2017-06-15 -- PENDINGREVIEW 14:13:49 http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/tracker/actions/498 14:14:15 Nigel: I did invite Richard and Addison but they have not either joined or said they would be (un)able to do so. 14:14:25 .. However there has been some discussion offline. 14:14:53 Pierre: I suggested it would be easier to have the discussion live but we can go ahead and try to propose a solution and disposition 14:14:57 .. and deal with the response. 14:15:24 .. I'm fairly confident that the root of the issues is mainly a misunderstanding of the specification. 14:15:48 Nigel: Some of the github issues have been discussed offline. 14:16:07 Pierre: By the way I'm not blaming anyone, but conflating reference fonts with recommended character sets is a problem. 14:16:30 .. They are really separate. I hope I clarified some of that. Specifically the idea of recommended sets is for author to have confidence 14:16:47 .. that characters for a particular language will be displayed and for implementers to have confidence that they are supporting the 14:17:08 .. correct code points. Separately and independently there are a set of reference fonts that are specified, but the choice of recommended character 14:17:32 .. sets was made independently of the reference fonts. And the "rendering fidelity" associated with recommended character sets is whether they 14:18:00 .. display at all, period, whereas for reference fonts it is about metrics, line breaking positions etc. So I think this is where the misunderstanding lies. 14:18:28 .. So in a pull request I tried to clarify it. At some point we have to propose something and let them restart the discussion if they feel the issue is not 14:18:30 .. resolved. 14:18:51 Mike: I'm sympathetic - this is a complicated topic, but I also believe the spec is clear. I think we have done what we can. 14:19:29 -> https://github.com/w3c/imsc/pull/245 Clarified the requirement for processors to implement reference fonts #245 14:20:16 Nigel: This is for #237 and #241. 14:20:27 Pierre: It has also been discussed in relation to #236. 14:21:06 Nigel: From the discussion are there more changes you want to apply to resolve the misunderstandings? 14:21:11 Pierre: Maybe less not more! 14:22:00 Present+ Dae 14:22:03 dae has joined #tt 14:22:28 Pierre: The note "Since the flow of text..." is the one we maybe need to work on. 14:22:37 Nigel: Did you see my proposed alternate wording? 14:22:51 -> https://github.com/w3c/imsc/pull/245/files#r121123051 14:23:01 Pierre: I'm fine with it - I hope people won't read too much into it. 14:23:35 .. It's not only the flow of text but also the background, the effective size of the subtitle. 14:23:43 Mike: Yes, line height, characters per line. 14:23:49 Pierre: Gaps between lines. 14:23:58 Mike: It's sweeping so having the reference font is critical. 14:24:34 .. From a web browser perspective some of this must seem strange, but for this application the web approach doesn't really work. 14:24:39 .. I don't know how you say that in a note! 14:25:03 Nigel: So "flow of text" is too generic? 14:25:29 Pierre: Or not broad enough. It is the whole appearance of the subtitle - I think that's a true statement. We could try to list it all but 14:25:37 .. evidently it is not obvious. 14:28:05 Nigel: The other thing we maybe need to clarify is the scenarios where reference fonts apply - it maybe does not jump out 14:28:26 .. enough that reference fonts only come into play for a very specific subset of computed values of tts:fontFamily. 14:28:43 Pierre: That's extremely explicit though. Without Richard on the call I think we're grasping at straws. 14:29:17 .. In light of what we just talk about what should we do? Have a more generic note about the appearance of the subtitle? 14:29:28 Nigel: Yes, if you want to try to craft that I'd be happy to review it. 14:29:48 Pierre: I'll do it now and we can review it later. 14:30:04 .. My recommendation is to apply the pull request and propose it as a disposition and get the response. 14:30:14 Nigel: I think that's fair. Any other views? 14:30:17 Mike: No. 14:32:14 -> https://github.com/w3c/imsc/issues/221 Attribute syntax definition: missing spaces #221 14:32:47 Pierre: Option 2 was preferred and there was no reaction against it, so I've drafted a pull request on that basis assuming that TTML1 will 14:33:17 .. clarify that spaces are in fact permitted, and rejiggered IMSC to take that into account. 14:33:31 -> https://github.com/w3c/imsc/pull/230 Required spaces between non-terminal components of styling and parameter attributes (issue #221) #230 14:35:29 Pierre: This PR puts references into TTML1 for the sections on attribute syntax, and IMSC assumes it is permitted and says "you should not do that" (in document instances). 14:38:36 Nigel: I see you've specified no white space between digit tokens... That's not to say you can't distinguish numerator from denominator! 14:39:06 Pierre: No just between digits. If you look say at %age in TTML1 it is clear that no LWSP is permitted between them. 14:39:25 .. It is obvious to me, but it was obvious that there would be no spaces between fontFamily components, so I'd rather err on the side of completeness. 14:39:27 Nigel: +1 14:39:49 Nigel: Do you want to merge that then? 14:39:58 Pierre: Yes 14:40:09 Nigel: okay, nobody has any objections, go ahead. 14:40:19 Pierre: Done. 14:40:46 Nigel: We have one more, which is #242: 14:40:56 -> https://github.com/w3c/imsc/pull/242 Discourage the use of tab characters in

and #242 14:41:24 Pierre: That's one day away from the 14 days and there have been no comments. 14:41:30 Nigel: I've just approved it by review. 14:44:13 Nigel: When it comes to Dispositions the main one we need to address is ARIB since all the other comments are W3 internal. 14:44:40 -> https://www.w3.org/wiki/IMSC1.0.1_Comments_tracker IMSC 1.0.1 comments tracker wiki page 14:45:27 Nigel: Thierry the ARIB liaison has listed on that wiki page that it is under review and not edited in the spec. 14:47:03 Thierry: That was the status about a week ago. 14:47:10 Nigel: I'm puzzled I thought it had been done. 14:47:39 pal has joined #tt 14:47:45 Pierre: Yes, they are #227 and #228 and they have been merged and are ready for review. 14:47:53 .. The proposed email states that. 14:48:28 .. You said that you and Thierry would review and send it after this meeting. 14:49:04 Nigel: The last email in the thread is: 14:49:05 -> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tt/2017Jun/0066.html 14:50:31 Nigel: OK I see. Does anyone have any comments or changes on the proposed response and dispositions? 14:50:36 group: [silence] 14:50:43 Nigel: In that case let us take that as approval! 14:50:50 Thierry: OK I will send that. 14:50:53 Nigel: Thank you. 14:51:41 Thierry: Just one thing - is 1 week response time enough? 14:51:57 Nigel: I think 1 week is very short. 14:52:10 Pierre: Do we have to get a response? Or can we proceed with no response after some time? 14:53:17 Thierry: The best is a response, but if not then we can go ahead to the Director in any case. 14:53:27 Pierre: Can we work backwards from when we want to publish the CR? 14:54:44 Nigel: I don't want to have our TTML2 and IMSC 1.0.1 publications clash. 14:55:00 Thierry: Only one is a transition - the other is just another WD. 14:56:34 Pierre: How about transitioning on July 6? Mid-July would not work for me. 14:56:49 Thierry: We can go straight to PR if we have implementation experience already. I've seen that before. 14:57:18 Nigel: I thought the Process sets a minimum duration for CR? But if not, then okay fine. 14:57:34 .. I believe we have one implementation of fillLineGap already, and implementing activeArea is trivial. 14:57:40 Thierry: I'll check the process. 14:59:45 Nigel: [also checks] - the 4 week minimum appears to be for getting comments on the way into CR not on the way out. 14:59:55 .. In that case when are other implementations expected? 15:00:32 .. I'm happy either way - we can go straight to PR otherwise CR. 15:00:39 Pierre: We can review that on July 6. 15:01:32 Nigel: July 6 is 3 weeks out, so we could offer 2 weeks. 15:01:39 Pierre: Then we could plan on transitioning on June 30. 15:02:31 Nigel: Accepting TTML2 is a WD only, it is much bigger so I would rather not schedule 2 document publications on the same day - I would rather wait until 15:02:35 .. July 6 for IMSC. 15:03:20 .. If we say that then we need a resolution to publish IMSC 1.0.1 as a CR (or PR) no later than next week's meeting. 15:03:50 .. That gives us this coming week to mop up any remaining open issues. 15:04:28 .. Thierry can we say 2 weeks for the disposition response? 15:04:37 Thierry: Yes 15:04:50 Pierre: I would say explicitly the date we plan to transition. 15:05:00 Thierry: We need to have the response before meeting the Director. 15:05:14 Pierre: Okay then 2 weeks for sure. I would be explicit about the planned transition dates too. 15:05:57 Nigel: I'm happy with the 2 weeks but I don't agree that we should include more dates of planned transitions etc - just say when we need the response back. 15:06:04 Pierre: Okay I'm fine with that too. 15:06:34 -> https://github.com/w3c/imsc/issues/246 SDP-US is listed as a normative reference, but it is not #246 15:07:15 Mike: This was prompted by a discussion with someone who thought that SDP-US is critical to implementation of IMSC1. However 15:08:02 .. implementation of SDP-US is not critical at all, so the normative reference is an error. 15:08:28 Pierre: Does a normative reference imply complete implementation of the referenced document or just the relevant bits? 15:08:31 Mike: The latter. 15:09:02 Pierre: That's my understanding too. The current text says "if the document conforms to SDP-US you shouldn't use ttp:profile". 15:09:10 Mike: That's poor choice of words and not IMSC1's business. 15:09:36 Pierre: Conformance with SDP-US is not IMSC1's business. If you want an SDP-US document do that. This is just a declarative note. 15:09:40 s/Pierre/Mike 15:09:53 Pierre: So you're arguing that's a statement not a conformance clause? 15:10:29 Mike: Yes absolutely. If you want to go there (and I don't), it's a declarative note only. It is not a conformance term for IMSC 1 and has nothing to do with 15:10:32 .. IMSC 1 conformance. 15:10:56 Pierre: My thinking is: as currently written it is evidently misleading, but not wrong. If we are going to move the normative reference to an informative one then 15:11:52 .. we should change this clause and remove any conformance. 15:11:59 Mike: I don't think we should wander into conformance here. 15:12:16 Nigel: There is also Annex I about compatibility with other TTML-based specifications. 15:13:32 .. Effectively the same wording is duplicated there. 15:13:42 .. And that's a useful service given the design goal to be a superset. 15:14:03 Pierre: Looking at §6.9 Profile Signaling... 15:15:58 .. SDP-US prohibits the ttp:profile attribute from being present. 15:16:24 .. In order for me to evaluate the clause in §6.9 I need to go and read SDP-US. 15:16:30 Mike: And it shouldn't make me do that. 15:17:00 Pierre: That's the root cause of this. You're suggesting that we should change the wording to be informative and move the reference to the non-normative section? 15:17:17 Mike: Yes, I'd like to refactor this to remove the normative reference. 15:17:36 .. The ramifications are editorial: the use of SHOULD originally was a bad choice. 15:17:47 Pierre: Section I.3 has the declarative statement. 15:19:40 Nigel: Just checking all the other references to SDP-US, they all seem to be declarative. 15:19:54 Pierre: We could reword §6.9 to match §I.3. 15:20:04 Mike: Why do we need to repeat it? 15:20:18 Pierre: Because it is important to clarify the profile signalling from TTML1. 15:20:34 Mike: I'm okay either a) deleting the sentence or b) restating it as a declarative statement. 15:21:32 .. There are a number of ways to remove this from the normative references. 15:21:56 Nigel: I don't have any objection to removing it from normative references. By the way it is only a WG Note, so it's a bit odd for us to normatively 15:22:05 .. reference it anyhow, I'm not sure how that slipped by. 15:22:22 Pierre: It could be just a missing ! - I can prepare a pull request. 15:22:29 Mike: I do believe this was just a mistake. 15:23:16 Pierre: I believe we will have to list this as a substantive change even though it has no conformance impact. 15:23:24 Nigel: I agree. 15:25:06 Pierre: I will prepare a pull request later today, if you could review it and let me know if there are any issues. 15:25:10 Mike: Thanks guys. 15:25:28 Pierre: Shall we go back to #245 which I have now updated? 15:25:37 Nigel: Given the time let's do that offline please. 15:26:26 Nigel: Summarising for the minutes, we have done what we can on the i18n issues, agreed the disposition response and made a plan 15:26:58 .. to make the resolution to transition to CR or possibly even PR in next week's meeting for a July 6 publication target. 15:30:43 Topic: TTML 15:31:39 Nigel: We said we would publish the WD for wide review by June 30, and that we would need a 2 week review period to approve it. 15:31:55 .. We have a number of open pull requests now and no final draft of the WD to review. 15:32:08 .. We also a number of open issues. 15:34:13 .. I wanted to propose that we merge all the current open pull requests and turn that into a draft that the group can 15:35:18 .. review prior to approving publication for wide review. That gives a 2 week review period for everyone. How does that grab everyone? 15:35:25 Mike: Okay for me. 15:36:33 Nigel: Clearly we can still make further changes prior to CR, or resolve issues with this version by pull requests in the next few days as long as there is 15:36:37 .. positive review from everyone. 15:36:51 s/everyone/enough key people, and no negative comments 15:37:25 Dae: I'm more interested in the deadline than having 2 full weeks. 1 week review is enough for me. 15:38:19 Pierre: Movielabs will abstain on this at this time. 15:38:50 Thierry: The proposal sounds reasonable to me. 15:39:15 Nigel: OK then I think we're agreed. 15:39:22 .. I will ask Glenn to progress that. 15:40:48 Nigel: Let's go through the pull requests then. 15:41:15 -> https://github.com/w3c/ttml2/pull/389 Issue 0384 streaming ttml appendix #389 15:41:56 -> https://rawgit.com/w3c/ttml2/04a3ea7dd0b15e9cb6451f4655a7d1aea38d32de/spec/ttml2.html HTML version 15:42:06 Nigel: It's appendix R 15:47:25 Nigel: I didn't quite do what we said last week in that I didn't reference the TTML1 appendix but left it in as a subsection. 15:47:37 .. I did that on the basis of one of Glenn's comments on the issue. 15:49:42 Mike: I would rather do what we said last week and diminish the relevance of the section that isn't common practice by making it a reference back to TTML1. 15:50:28 Nigel: I have limited time available in the short term to fix this so unless there are strong objections to what we have I propose to keep it as is, 15:50:41 .. or otherwise I'd welcome if anyone else wants to implement the reference change. 15:51:03 Mike: I haven't had time to check the detail on the rest of this. 15:53:05 Nigel: Unless there are any more issues or pull requests to discuss let's return to the IMSC topic. 15:53:15 Topic: IMSC (revisited) 15:53:35 Pierre: On the SDP-US issue the sentence above about EBU-TT-D has the same issue. I'm wondering if we should change that too. 15:54:10 Nigel: That's true. 15:54:19 Pierre: I'm thinking of dealing with that at the same time. 15:55:00 Mike: Having parallel language would probably be the best thing to do but since EBU-TT-D and SMPTE-TT are essential I'm not pushing for that. 15:55:11 Pierre: I'm asking for permission to make the two bullets consistent in language. 15:55:51 Nigel: I agree - please change "should not be present" to "is not present" for EBU-TT-D. 15:55:54 Mike: I'm happy with that. 15:56:04 Pierre: Okay I will do that and you'll see the pull request later today. Thank you. 15:57:41 Nigel: We're out of agenda, also time. Thanks everyone. [adjourns meeting] 15:57:45 rrsagent, make minutes 15:57:45 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/06/15-tt-minutes.html nigel 16:08:34 ScribeOptions: -final -noEmbedDiagnostics 16:08:36 rrsagent, make minutes 16:08:36 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/06/15-tt-minutes.html nigel 16:50:04 Zakim has left #tt