13:59:15 RRSAgent has joined #tt 13:59:15 logging to http://www.w3.org/2017/06/29-tt-irc 13:59:17 RRSAgent, make logs public 13:59:17 Zakim has joined #tt 13:59:19 Zakim, this will be TTML 13:59:19 ok, trackbot 13:59:20 Meeting: Timed Text Working Group Teleconference 13:59:20 Date: 29 June 2017 13:59:25 Present: David, Nigel 13:59:31 Chair: Nigel, David 14:00:13 Regrets: Glenn 14:00:16 scribe: nigel 14:03:08 Present+ Pierre 14:03:09 dsinger_ has joined #tt 14:03:30 s/David/Dave_Singer 14:04:23 tmichel has joined #tt 14:05:50 Present+ Thierry 14:06:47 Present+ Dae 14:07:22 dae has joined #tt 14:08:19 Topic: This meeting 14:08:55 Nigel: Today we have an agenda item on WebVTT that Dave will take at the top of the meeting, 14:09:22 .. then IMSC and TTML. We may be about to request publication of three specifications 14:09:28 .. all at once, at different levels of transition. 14:09:59 .. We should also cover TPAC briefly if time allows. 14:10:24 .. There's been a bit of progress on HDR in PNG too. Any other business? 14:10:36 group: [silence] 14:10:42 Topic: WebVTT 14:11:05 Dave: We haven't talked about the WebVTT spec for a long time on a call. I wanted to 14:11:22 .. bring you up to speed. Firstly an apology we haven't been publishing WDs, as I didn't 14:11:35 https://w3c.github.io/webvtt/ 14:11:48 Dave: realise we don't need permission to publish. Unless anyone wants to object then 14:12:16 .. we would like to publish the above as a new WD. 14:12:24 Nigel: For wide review? 14:12:35 Dave: Let's come to that. Initially just a heartbeat publication. 14:12:50 https://www.w3.org/wiki/WebVTT_Wide_Review 14:12:50 .. 2 years ago we requested wide review, and received a load of comments. We finally 14:13:06 .. reached resolution of all the issues raised. I asked the CG to check once more on the 14:13:15 pal has joined #tt 14:13:25 .. disposition of all these bugs. Thierry has helped to build the table of all these issues, 14:13:32 .. including links to the issues and the dispositions. 14:13:49 .. The WG status says @@ on every issue. At the bottom we see the key for WG status 14:14:03 .. to be filled in. I would like to see status 1 CG disposition agreed by WG. 14:14:25 s/1/3.1 14:14:40 .. I would like the WG to indicate in the next couple of weeks if the disposition is okay 14:15:27 .. or if more needs to be done, and let me know. 14:15:29 By mid-June I would like to know how the WG feels on the disposition of each of these 14:15:46 Thierry and I will be verifying the commenters' reactions to each of them 14:16:02 The test suite was recently improved 14:17:00 Dave: I hope that by the middle of the month we have a new WD, agreed dispositions 14:17:30 .. and a test suite report, and then to publish the CR. I'd like to be at CR by TPAC. 14:17:46 .. Then we will discuss if we will have to remove features to move to Rec. Now with the 14:17:59 .. test suite and the spec dealt with... Oh one more request, look at the GitHub issues 14:18:12 .. that were not wide review and say if there are any there that need to be fixed. I didn't 14:18:24 .. think myself that any urgently need to be addressed but you may disagree. 14:18:51 Nigel: Is there a requirements doc for WebVTT that we can review against? 14:19:08 Dave: I don't think there was ever a formal requirements document. We took it on as a 14:19:41 .. working document from WHATWG, historically. 14:20:29 Thierry: I'd like to understand a bit more, because it's not clear to me exactly what are 14:20:42 .. the milestones. We are planning to publish on /TR a new WD, that I understood. 14:20:56 .. Then in parallel we are asking the TTWG to review the comments that were sent and 14:21:10 .. the proposals. I don't see what the TTWG could say now if it's been approved by the CG 14:21:28 .. and by the commenter, what could the WG bring? Then are we going to trigger a new 14:21:41 .. Wide Review before going to CR? The WR was 2 years ago and there have been 14:21:46 .. substantive changes since then. 14:21:58 Push new WD now; review the disposition of the last round of wide review comments [2 weeks]; then we'll do another (briefer) wide review; 14:22:01 Dave: Yes push a WD now, review the disposition at WG level over a couple of weeks 14:22:14 .. if that is enough, then another WR request, and hopefully fewer comments will arrive, 14:22:25 .. and by then we will have a test report and I'm hoping we can deal with any comments 14:22:29 .. and then move to CR pretty rapidly. 14:22:43 Thierry: We don't need tests to get into CR. It's good if we do but it's not a requirement. 14:22:58 Dave: I don't want to enter CR without the test suite being reasonably complete and working. 14:23:31 Nigel: Have all the dispositions gone back to the commenter? 14:23:43 Dave: They have all been worked through in dialog with the commenter. 14:23:58 .. Nonetheless someone here might notice something we haven't noticed. Formally the 14:24:10 .. WG needs the opportunity to say if the disposition is not good enough. I don't want 14:24:14 .. to short-circuit the WG here. 14:25:11 Nigel: There was a question about how long we need to review. Is 2 weeks enough? 14:25:22 https://www.w3.org/wiki/WebVTT_Wide_Review 14:25:28 https://w3c.github.io/webvtt/ 14:26:04 Thierry: Another issue: why are we publishing a WD in a few days and then waiting 14:26:22 .. 2 weeks or so for the WG to respond? Why not directly publish a WR document? 14:26:37 Dave: We could get WR on this WD if you like, and do them in parallel. 14:26:45 Thierry: I don't see the difference actually. 14:27:05 Dave: Yes let's parallelise it, if you can help publish the WR requests Thierry. 14:27:19 Thierry: Okay, if the TTWG publishes this as a WR we need to agree a review period by 14:27:25 .. the public. 14:27:33 Dave: Yes, what's typical? 14:27:56 Thierry: I think at least 4 weeks, given it's summer. 14:28:09 Dave: I'd be happy with end of July assuming we publish the WD in the next day or two. 14:28:16 .. OK? 14:28:34 .. Thierry if you could help with this that would be helpful. 14:28:50 Thierry: I tried yesterday but it uses Bikeshed and I don't know how that works - I spent 14:29:08 .. 4 hours yesterday trying to understand it and I still could not achieve it. I need to go 14:29:22 .. through the usual former publication process by the WebMaster unless Philippe can 14:29:25 .. give me some help. 14:29:30 Dave: Silvia might be able to help. 14:29:42 Thierry: Bikeshed is typically used in CSS WG and not many other groups. 14:29:45 Silvia and/or Philippe (or the CSS folks) can probably help. Bikeshed is widely used, I think 14:30:00 Nigel: So it's going to be 4 weeks post-publication? 14:30:08 Thierry: That's the minimum especially in summer. 14:30:11 Nigel: Do you want longer? 14:30:19 Thierry: I'm saying it's the minimum. 14:30:46 Dave: It's the second round and all the changes have been as a result of the previous 14:30:50 .. round of wide review. 14:31:05 Thierry: I think what we should do is restrict the wide review to the new features that 14:31:16 .. were added, so I don't know if we have a list of substantive changes that were done. 14:31:20 Dave: That's a good point. 14:31:32 Thierry: You can ask in the review to review only the delta. 14:31:42 Dave: Yes, I will work with the Editors on working out what that list is. 14:31:56 Regrets+ Andreas 14:32:15 Dave: If you can help me work out the differences Thierry I will do that. 14:32:21 Thierry: It says that on the wiki page. 14:32:26 previous Wide Review was https://www.w3.org/TR/2014/WD-webvtt1-20141113/ 14:33:11 Dave: I'll do a review and indicate the significant changes since then. 14:34:27 .. Sounds like a plan - we'll push the WD, analyse the differences, get the WG dispositions agreed. 14:34:38 Nigel: We need the deltas for the WD for WR, which normally go in the SOTD. 14:34:51 Thierry: So we do a standard WD publication in the next few days, then a WR WD when 14:34:54 .. we have that ready. 14:34:56 Dave: Ok 14:35:17 Thierry: I will work with Philippe to publish the current version as the new WD and if I 14:35:24 .. can't do that I will ask the WebMaster to do it on Tuesday. 14:35:28 Dave: Ok, thanks. 14:36:21 .. Thanks for getting the details of exactly what we need to do. Thierry please help 14:36:30 .. to make sure we don't drop any of these. 14:36:35 .. Thanks everyone, [drops off] 14:37:09 Topic: IMSC 14:37:15 action-498? 14:37:15 action-498 -- Nigel Megitt to Invite i18n to discuss imsc 1.0.1 issues -- due 2017-06-15 -- PENDINGREVIEW 14:37:15 http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/tracker/actions/498 14:37:43 Nigel: Huge apologies for this dropping off my radar, but I entirely failed to do it. 14:38:02 .. I mean to ping them again after last week's meeting. The original invitation was sent. 14:38:23 .. Obviously Richard and Addison were pinged on the GitHub issues in any case. 14:38:45 .. For now I want to close the action since they did not respond. 14:38:48 close action-498 14:38:48 Closed action-498. 14:39:24 Nigel: In terms of the timeline Pierre, you have closed the issues where we said we 14:39:34 .. would do so after a deadline. 14:39:49 Pierre: There are two ARIB WR issues that can't be closed until tomorrow unfortunately. 14:40:14 Nigel: We haven't seen anything from ARIB - Thierry? 14:40:25 Thierry: No that's correct. If we don't get anything by tomorrow I propose to close the issue. 14:40:33 Pierre: The issues that remain are: 14:41:01 -> https://github.com/w3c/imsc/issues/244 Add diff from IMSC 1.0.0 and update substantive-changes-summary.txt 14:41:19 Pierre: I can't do that until #227 and #228 are closed tomorrow, so I will have a draft ready for publication on Monday. 14:41:36 Nigel: Right now I think it's quite unlikely we will get a response in time, but it's possible. 14:42:08 .. Is it worth preparing #244 in anticipation of no more changes. 14:42:12 s/s./s? 14:42:25 Pierre: I was going to do that over the weekend so it would be available to Thierry on Monday. 14:42:59 .. The only outstanding point without an issue is what we do with the schemas. 14:43:12 .. We have dealt with it for IMSC1 but we need to agree how we are going to publish 14:43:15 .. XSDs going forward. 14:44:00 Nigel: It's good to raise that. I put forward one view, but it may be too much change for some people. 14:44:16 Pierre: The goal is to reference the XSDs from the spec in a way that can be referenced 14:44:22 .. and updated by group Consensus, right? 14:44:28 Thierry: I agree. 14:44:31 Nigel: I agree too. 14:44:42 Thierry: If the schemas were normative we would have no choice, but since they are 14:44:52 .. not normative we can publish them anywhere. There are no restrictions or guidelines. 14:45:07 .. In the past we published them on the W3C site at some URI but now people are using 14:45:25 .. GitHub. I'm fine with either proposal. I don't think GitHub is very friendly. I prefer a 14:45:39 .. page that directly shows up in my browser but that's really personal. I think w3.org 14:45:50 .. is a more stable URI because we don't know what will happen with GitHub one day. 14:46:59 Nigel: You can download that on GitHub directly. 14:47:04 Thierry: Yes but its hard to find. 14:47:17 Pierre: My main concern with GitHub is that anyone can change the tags, so I would rather 14:47:29 .. have a more formal publication step on the W3C site. 14:48:25 Nigel: I don't mind either option. Would we publish a wrapper page or would the URL 14:48:29 .. just point to a directory? 14:49:16 Thierry: It would be like IMSC 1 with a wrapper. 14:49:31 Nigel: If its a wrapper then we can do both, since it will always be on GitHub anyway. 14:49:47 .. Then people who find GitHub easier can use that, or people who prefer the direct download 14:49:52 .. can get it from a W3C resource. 14:50:06 Pierre: I would be having them in a GitHub repo with a tagged release anyway. 14:50:28 Thierry: Would you prefer separate downloads or a ZIP to be downloadable? 14:50:44 Pierre: Right now we have a wrapper page? I would do exactly the same and what I would 14:51:01 .. need from Thierry is that W3C page so I can put the XSD in the doc. 14:51:37 I propose to host those schemas at 14:51:37 https://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/IMSC/ttml-imsc1.0.1/xml-schemas/ 14:53:33 the same as https://www.w3.org/TR/2017/WD-ttml-imsc1.0.1-20170322/xml-schemas/ 14:54:07 Nigel: I thought that was a directory listing but I see it's actually a wrapper page. 14:54:47 .. So we can add to that wrapper page a link to the GitHub page with the latest release tag? 14:54:57 Pierre: If they want to go to GitHub then they can just go there. 14:55:07 Nigel: How would they know to do that. 14:55:54 s/t./t? 14:56:15 Pierre: I'm reluctant to point to a specific release tag or path on GitHub because that 14:56:33 .. can change. We can point to the repo, or if you think a ZIP is better we can just put a 14:56:40 .. ZIP there. I'm trying to avoid duplication. 14:56:47 Thierry: Me too, I'd like to avoid that. 14:58:06 Nigel: I don't think it is duplication - or any duplication is from the GitHub repo to the 14:58:22 .. w3 site. 14:59:22 Pierre: By design or mistake it's really easy to change the release tags. 14:59:46 Nigel: I'd like to check maybe with Philippe if we can manage the rights to create or modify 14:59:53 .. release tags, and if we can add it then do so. 15:00:03 Thierry: Anyhow we can modify the page anytime to add new links if we want. 15:00:20 https://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/IMSC/ttml-imsc1.0.1/xml-schemas.zip 15:00:32 Pierre: The link now will be slightly different because it will have a URL like the above? 15:00:42 Thierry: I thought we would have a wrapper page and then in that wrapper page we can 15:00:55 .. add a link to GitHub if we want. And we can even add a link to a ZIP file from that 15:00:58 .. wrapper page. 15:01:07 Pierre: Okay that sounds fine to me. 15:01:16 .. I'll add a new issue for moving the XSDs to outside of /TR. 15:01:30 Thierry: You know when we changed the XSD in place I put a comment in the XSD to 15:01:44 .. say that it was changed inplace on June 23 so I propose to remove that for 1.0.1. 15:01:58 .. It was just to explain the change on the Rec home page. 15:02:09 Pierre: Yes, anyway, it's not in the GitHub version. 15:02:15 Thierry: Should I take the GitHub version? 15:02:18 Pierre: Absolutely. 15:02:25 Thierry: OK I'll start from that. 15:03:35 Nigel: Okay I'd like to propose CR publication based on no changes coming from ARIB. 15:03:40 .. Did we set a review deadline? 15:03:45 Pierre: Yes we said August 6. 15:04:20 Thierry: Okay I have prepared a transition request document which I will send to the 15:04:36 .. Director because we don't have any formal objection anymore so I hope we don't need a call. 15:04:50 Nigel: Oh thanks for the reminder - Glenn told me he will not object formally to CR 15:05:00 .. publication as v 1.0.1. 15:06:19 PROPOSAL: Publish IMSC 1.0.1 based on the current ED with request for review by August 6 assuming there are no changes due to comments by ARIB tomorrow and the differences issue is resolved. 15:06:47 Pierre: CR publication for July 6 and end of CR to August 6? 15:06:48 Thierry: Yes. 15:07:02 Pierre: Add diff from IMSC 1 and add substantive changes summary and update the 15:07:05 .. XSD link. 15:07:18 .. These are all captured in #244 and #248 in GitHub. 15:07:42 Nigel: Is there any more work to do on the Disposition of comments for the CR transition request? 15:07:51 Thierry: There are some issues I'm not sure if they are closed or not. 15:07:52 https://www.w3.org/wiki/IMSC1.0.1_Comments_tracker 15:08:21 Thierry: What remains is the Call for Review to W3C groups - only i18n responded. 15:08:53 .. Nigel if you can provide me with the exact list of external bodies that you sent the 15:08:56 .. calls for review to? 15:09:08 Nigel: They are all in the member-tt archives, if you could get them from there. 15:09:11 Thierry: I will do that. 15:10:11 .. Now the comments themselves: we have only 1 comment from ARIB and we are... 15:10:22 Nigel: Sorry to interrupt, didn't we get a positive comment from DVB? 15:10:30 Thierry: Maybe - if you find it send me the link. 15:10:32 Nigel: Will do. 15:10:56 Thierry: Now we have 3 issues: #236 with no answer from Richard? 15:11:27 Pierre: True, no further communications since 2 weeks ago. 15:11:53 Thierry: Should we close that and say it's done? 15:11:57 Nigel: It's already closed. 15:12:15 Thierry: The next from Richard is done and the last from Addison also closed due to no answer. 15:12:30 .. Then there are 9 comments from WG members. I'm not sure the latest status on some of them. 15:12:44 .. 5 are marked as pending - Pierre, what is the latest status for those? 15:12:55 Pierre: They're all on GitHub right? 15:13:06 Thierry: Yes but it's not clear to me if it was agreed. 15:13:41 Pierre: #221 the commenter never agreed. 15:13:55 .. I think it resolves the comment. 15:14:06 Thierry: So there's no response from the commenter? 15:14:12 Pierre: Correct, nobody disagreed. 15:14:31 Thierry: okay that one is "no response, closed". 15:14:39 .. Then we have #223. 15:15:08 Pierre: This was just a question. 15:15:14 Nigel: And the person who asked it closed the issue. 15:15:19 Thierry: Ok that's closed. 15:15:23 .. Now #228? 15:15:49 Pierre: That's one from ARIB. 15:16:06 Thierry: OK I understand now. I've been tracking it in the archives only. 15:16:20 .. Then #232 and #242. 15:16:30 Pierre: #232 was my comment and I'm happy with the resolution. 15:16:32 Thierry: Thank you. 15:16:59 .. Then we have #234. 15:17:26 Pierre: Andreas created it and it is part of the solution to #233. 15:19:03 Nigel: Andreas proposed the pull request to resolve #233. #234 was merged. 15:19:42 .. Since the original issue was #233 that was raised by Andreas I think we can conclude 15:19:45 .. that he was happy with it. 15:20:17 Thierry: Ok, the next is #238. 15:20:22 Pierre: That was closed by the commenter. 15:20:30 Thierry: Ok, the last one is #240. 15:20:48 Pierre: that was mine, and I'm happy with it. 15:20:59 Thierry: Okay I will finish the disposition of comments today so that we are ready and 15:21:11 .. then I'll send the transition request on Monday because I need to have the CR version 15:21:14 .. document. Okay? 15:21:38 Nigel: Please could you send me the updated draft transition request before you raise it? 15:21:52 Thierry: I'll send it to you on Monday because I need the final details, and I have to remove 15:21:58 .. the placeholder for the formal objection. 15:22:39 Nigel: My diary is okay on Monday so I should be able to scan it and return it fairly quickly. 15:23:09 rrsagent, make minutes 15:23:09 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/06/29-tt-minutes.html nigel 15:23:46 RESOLUTION: Publish IMSC 1.0.1 based on the current ED with request for review by August 6 assuming there are no changes due to comments by ARIB tomorrow and the differences issue is resolved. 15:24:12 Nigel: Thank you all, is there anything else on IMSC? 15:24:16 group: [silence] 15:24:35 Topic: TTML 15:24:57 Nigel: Our goal here is to publish the current ED as a WD for Wide Review. 15:25:33 .. Current status: We have been discussing ttp:mediaOffset offline, and there are no comments on the open pull request, to complete #195. 15:25:56 s/are no comments/is one comment 15:26:33 Nigel: #396 is the audio related features pull request and I just asked for the features 15:26:47 .. to be added to profiles where they are currently omitted, for completeness. 15:27:07 Nigel: I don't know why Glenn hasn't responded to that comment, or done it - anyway 15:27:09 .. I can do it. 15:31:38 Nigel: On the mediaOffset issue #323 I don't want to hold back WR publication - I guess 15:31:54 .. we can still remove between WR and CR if there are supporting negative comments. 15:34:17 Pierre: I agree with you Nigel that there's no use case for that feature and it will actually 15:34:32 .. cause harm so I would like to remove it (see the issue!). 15:34:51 .. However given the desire to publish the WD for WR I would not hold up that publication. 15:35:08 .. For the record Movielabs would not object to the publication of the WD for WR as long 15:35:24 .. as the review period is no less than 3 months to give adequate time for review including 15:35:28 .. by groups with long review cycles. 15:37:07 PROPOSAL: Publish a WD for WR of TTML2 based on the current ED, with a review period ending at end of September. 15:37:27 Nigel: I think we can probably add the audio feature designators after WR publication though I would prefer to include them before. 15:38:10 Nigel: In that case the only action will be on Glenn to update the SOTD for the review period 15:38:45 .. and then publish with echidna. 15:38:58 Dae: Can I close the open i18n issues where I haven't had a response yet? 15:39:12 Nigel: No they can stay open until we need to move to CR. 15:39:26 Pierre: You can definitely not close those - we haven't even given a deadline for feedback yet. 15:40:51 Dae: I want to close off the issues that are related to printed publication not to 15:40:53 .. subtitles. 15:41:04 Nigel: What we need to do is go through each issue, for you to propose that disposition, 15:41:18 .. for the group to agree it, and then to go back to the commenter and check they are okay with it. 15:41:21 Dae: Okay sure. 15:41:49 Nigel: For the proposal, I'm hearing no objections? 15:41:56 Dae: Yes, and that keeps us on track for end of 2017. 15:42:20 Nigel: It does if we have implementations so we are confident of moving out of CR quickly. 15:42:24 Dae: Yes. 15:43:33 RESOLUTION: Publish a WD for WR of TTML2 based on the current ED, with a review period ending at end of September, preferably though not necessarily with pull request #396 merged. 15:44:08 Nigel: Anything else to cover now on TTML? 15:44:11 group: [silence] 15:44:25 Topic: TPAC 15:44:29 action-497? 15:44:29 action-497 -- Nigel Megitt to Invite csswg to joint meeting at tpac 2017, with list of topics. -- due 2017-06-15 -- OPEN 15:44:29 http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/tracker/actions/497 15:44:44 Nigel: Apologies this has slipped another week - I will get around to this! 15:45:27 Topic: HDR in PNG 15:45:50 Pierre: Some progress here on the PQ HDR in PNG. Adobe has officially released the 15:46:04 .. sample ICC profile for publication by W3C. 15:46:18 .. I never heard back from Chris Lilley so I opened a pull request to try to address his concerns. 15:46:40 .. Also I've heard concerns that this PQ in PNG approach, because PNG is limited to 8 bit 15:47:03 .. or 16 bit, and 8 is not sufficient for general HDR use and 16 is not efficient, so PNG 15:47:21 .. is not suitable for this use case. I've encouraged the concerned party to raise a comment 15:47:30 .. on GitHub as an issue. 15:47:44 .. I think it's a legitimate concern. It means that the scope of the document goes from 15:48:00 .. being general to specifically how do I do PQ in PNG until there's a better solution. 15:48:44 .. The scope of the document will be limited to be just for subtitles and captions. 15:49:12 Nigel: It's a general purpose format so how can you tell people what they can or cannot use it for? 15:49:28 Pierre: The document would say it is appropriate for that use but may not be appropriate 15:49:33 .. for other applications. 15:49:40 Nigel: I see. 15:52:28 Pierre: My plan is, if we get that comment, to address it and maybe in a couple of weeks 15:52:34 .. have something for the group to consider. 15:52:38 Nigel: Thank you! 15:53:05 Pierre: I've also learned yesterday that this is actually in use today - these kinds of PNGs 15:53:16 .. are being exchanged now to address those markets that accept HDR content. 15:53:30 .. Documenting that is a good idea. 15:53:39 Nigel: Are they doing that in the absence of any referrable document? 15:53:50 Pierre: Yes they'd really like a referrable document! 15:54:42 Nigel: Thanks, I think we've covered everything on our agenda. [adjourns meeting] 15:54:48 rrsagent, make minutes 15:54:48 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/06/29-tt-minutes.html nigel 16:12:14 ScribeOptions: -final -noEmbedDiagnostics 16:12:16 rrsagent, make minutes 16:12:16 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/06/29-tt-minutes.html nigel 16:12:18 Zakim has left #tt 17:16:30 pal has joined #tt 20:12:21 tmichel has joined #tt 21:13:14 tmichel has joined #tt