13:59:51 RRSAgent has joined #tt 13:59:51 logging to http://www.w3.org/2017/08/03-tt-irc 13:59:53 RRSAgent, make logs public 13:59:53 Zakim has joined #tt 13:59:55 Zakim, this will be TTML 13:59:55 ok, trackbot 13:59:56 Meeting: Timed Text Working Group Teleconference 13:59:56 Date: 03 August 2017 14:00:05 tm has joined #tt 14:01:15 Present: Nigel 14:01:17 scribe: nigel 14:01:19 Chair: Nigel 14:01:23 Regrets: Andreas 14:01:33 Present+ Pierre 14:01:54 Present+ Mike 14:02:52 mike has joined #tt 14:05:59 tmichel has joined #tt 14:05:59 Topic: This meeting 14:06:16 Nigel: Looks like we're low on numbers for today, let's see what we can do... 14:07:01 .. I don't think we can do much on TPAC, there's a bit on CSS features, there's an IMSC 14:07:20 .. issue on origin and extent, and some imsc-tests changes. 14:07:36 Pierre: I'd like to talk about where to host IMSC2 requirements - either on the imsc repo 14:07:42 I can't connect to webex ;-( 14:07:59 Pierre: wiki or in a different repo. I don't know the lead time to creating a repo... 14:08:13 Nigel: When plh does it, it's very quick, but let's think about if we need a new repo. 14:08:45 .. Let's cover it in the IMSC section. For TTML I need to report back on the privacy meeting 14:08:50 .. from last week. 14:09:46 webex is waiting for mit.webex.com and I can't connect ... 14:11:05 Nigel: On WebVTT I think David considers that we've had long enough to review the CG's 14:11:13 .. proposed disposition of comments, so let's check that's true. 14:11:39 .. Any other topics to discuss? 14:11:48 group: No other topics. 14:12:57 Present+ Thierry 14:14:24 Topic: CSS styling equivalents of TTML2 and IMSC features 14:14:41 Nigel: There's been one change to the wiki page since last week, because someone from 14:15:25 .. CSS WG pointed out that textOutline maps somewhat to stroke-width in CSS. 14:15:30 pal has joined #tt 14:15:32 -> https://www.w3.org/wiki/TTML/CSSRequirements#textOutline CSS Requirements - textOutline 14:16:32 Nigel: I changed it from no mapping to partial mapping. This is one where the CSS spec 14:16:48 .. is in WD and maybe FPWD but the browsers all support it according to caniuse. 14:17:01 Pierre: I didn't find that when I did imsc.js, but great news. 14:18:10 Nigel: I haven't experimented with seeing if text-shadow can be used alongside stroke-width 14:18:14 .. to generate a similar effect. 14:18:30 -> https://www.w3.org/TR/fill-stroke-3/#stroke-width CSS stroke-width property. 14:18:40 Pierre: [let's try it...] 14:20:41 .. It looks like stroke-width is supported by Chrome but not stroke-color. 14:22:25 Nigel: caniuse says they are both supported with a -webkit- prefix. 14:24:02 Pierre: That works, with the prefix on both. 14:25:48 https://codepen.io/palemieux/pen/ZJpwxJ 14:25:51 .. But it looks like the stroke is internal rather than external. 14:27:51 Pierre: It looks like the stroke is centered on the glyph outline rather than going outward, 14:27:57 .. so for use in subtitles it is not useful. 14:28:36 Nigel: The comment was at https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2017Jul/0030.html 14:28:40 Pierre: I'll reply to that thread. 14:29:14 Nigel: Thanks. The next point on this topic is that I'll be dialling in to the CSS WG tomorrow 14:29:35 .. 0930 Paris time for their discussion of the styling requirements we have here, and TTML2 14:29:39 .. more widely. 14:30:16 .. My goal will be to raise the requirements that we have identified and hopefully get 14:30:30 .. some agreement to work on them so that we can follow up at TPAC. I'll also invite them 14:30:38 .. to attend our meeting at TPAC also. 14:31:06 Topic: IMSC 14:31:31 Pierre: I'm interested in understanding the best place to gather IMSC2 requirements. One 14:31:42 .. option is the IMSC repo wiki. It's not ideal for change tracking, but maybe we won't need 14:32:22 .. that very much. It's super simple. Another alternative is to create a repo called e.g. 14:32:32 .. imsc-vnext-req and do it there. 14:33:31 Nigel: I slightly prefer a separate repo and document because that allows us to reference 14:33:42 .. it in the transition questions later, instead of saying "no requirements, just based on a 14:34:00 .. member submission" we can say "see WG Note ..." which is helpful. 14:34:24 Pierre: Especially if we are going to publish as a WG Note then doing it in a new repo is 14:34:34 .. a no-brainer so we should just create a new repo for that. 14:35:57 ACTION: tmichel Create a new repo imsc-vnext-reqs 14:36:01 Created ACTION-500 - Create a new repo imsc-vnext-reqs [on Thierry Michel - due 2017-08-10]. 14:36:38 github: https://github.com/w3c/imsc/issues/249 14:37:51 Nigel: [summarises most recent posts on the issue] 14:38:16 .. Is this just something that followed through from TTML1 without anyone noticing? 14:38:32 Pierre: Exactly, I think it's that simple that nobody noticed it so the ability came through 14:38:46 .. without anyone constraining it. The "either" shouldn't be interpreted as a constraint. 14:39:07 .. The most we could do is add a Note saying not to do it, but actually supporting mixed 14:39:22 .. units is not a problem in implementations regardless of how strange it would be to use them. 14:39:58 Nigel: I think the answer is that mixing units is allowed. 14:40:06 .. I don't even think we need a note on it. 14:40:28 Pierre: We could remove the "either" to remove the hint to the contrary. 14:40:30 Nigel: +1 14:40:33 Pierre: I can propose it. 14:41:23 RESOLVED: Mixed units are permitted, Pierre to propose a removal of the possibly misleading "either". 14:41:35 github-bot, end topic 14:43:12 Topic: IMSC Tests 14:43:30 Pierre: Not much to discuss, should we arbitrarily say that the tests are complete at some 14:43:43 .. time, to put a line in the sand? I feel that we're probably there so we could just declare 14:43:58 .. version 1.0 open, and the next big milestone is to say when IMSC 1.0.1 is published, 14:44:04 .. have a v1.0.1 or whatever. 14:44:33 Nigel: Don't we need to add the 1.0.1 tests in? 14:45:06 Pierre: My plan was to wait until CR at the earliest, based on implementations. 14:45:21 Nigel: Right, because the imsc-tests suite is for Recs and the CR implementation report 14:45:26 .. is based on tests that are somewhere else? 14:45:34 Pierre: Exactly, that's how it is in my mind. 14:45:39 Nigel: Makes sense to me. 14:46:03 .. I suppose one option would be to create a branch with a mirror of the CR tests so its 14:46:11 .. ready to pull request in when the spec moves on. 14:46:30 .. It doesn't matter when you do that, and it could potentially cause confusion doing it too soon. 14:46:34 Pierre: Exactly. 14:47:07 .. Should we declare this as v1? What do other groups do? 14:48:04 Thierry: I don't know the answer. 14:48:28 Nigel: What does this mean? Add a release tag, put it on the implementations wiki page and maybe the TTWG homepage? 14:48:35 Pierre: Exactly, and send a message to the public reflector. 14:49:43 Nigel: Is there a test harness or framework that can put the input documents in and 14:49:46 .. compare the outputs? 14:50:07 Pierre: On imsc.js there's a PNG comparison script, which I'd happily contribute. 14:50:17 https://github.com/sandflow/imscJS/blob/master/script/refpngcompare.py 14:51:00 Nigel: For me the key thing is that the tests are there - having a test runner would be 14:51:09 .. great but could be a v2 thing perhaps. 14:51:19 Pierre: Exactly, the key thing is the tests are stable. 14:51:48 Pierre: The PNGs are generated by imsc.js plus I've checked manually that the output is 14:51:50 .. correct. 14:52:01 .. I found many bugs in the TTML1 tests that were adapted. It's possible there are still 14:52:17 .. bugs, but I've seen a definite slow-down in bug reports for IMSC.js and IMSC1 so 14:52:22 .. declaring 1.0 is not crazy. 14:52:28 Nigel: Works for me! 14:52:53 .. I guess we should feed some of the fixes back into the TTML1 suite too. 14:53:06 Pierre: Yes, unfortunately I haven't kept track of them. 14:55:07 -> https://github.com/w3c/imsc-tests/issues/36 Declare a v1 release 15:00:36 Topic: WebVTT review feedback 15:01:15 Thierry: About a month ago David came to one of these calls requesting that the TTWG 15:01:40 .. review the latest WebVTT draft and he gave a 2 month period in order to do so. So it's 15:01:54 .. now about a month in, and David said he didn't receive any comments, so the CG would 15:02:10 .. like to move forward and publish a new wide review draft - we had one already back in 15:02:21 .. 2014 but since then there were a lot of new features added to the spec, therefore we 15:02:34 .. are going to trigger a second wide review and horizontal review. David considered that 15:03:11 .. the comments that were sent during the first review are considered ok. 15:03:20 Nigel: Are we reviewing the draft or the disposition of comments? 15:03:35 Thierry: The disposition of comments and the edits that they triggered to make the 15:03:52 .. recent draft. Now there is going to be another review for the new features that have 15:04:00 .. not had a chance for wide review except by the CG. 15:04:35 Nigel: Did you say he gave 2 months and now he wants to cut it to 1 month? 15:04:59 Thierry: No he said a month. The TTWG has not really reviewed the answers to the 15:05:07 .. commenters' comments, which is what we required. 15:05:35 Nigel: Right so there was a draft disposition of comments and a request for approval by 15:05:39 .. the WG and so far there has been silence? 15:05:51 Thierry: Yes, there is no real disposition of comments, it's more issues raised in the 15:06:04 .. tracker and in github but there's no real disposition of comments as done for our specs 15:06:06 .. for example. 15:06:13 Nigel: I thought you make a wiki page? 15:06:19 Thierry: Yes but it's not finished in my view. 15:07:42 Pierre: Can't we just use the same process? Isn't it a W3C process? 15:07:55 Thierry: The Process doesn't describe exactly what the disposition of comments should look like. 15:08:00 Pierre: What does the Process say? 15:08:14 Thierry: That you have to go through a wide review and that you have to demonstrate to 15:08:32 .. the Director that the comments have all been responded to and if the commenter is 15:08:35 .. satisfied. 15:08:43 Pierre: I think we should use the same process we have used before. 15:08:47 Thierry: I would agree. 15:08:58 .. For example we can not track if the commenter is satisfied or not at the moment. 15:10:40 .. If the co-chair believes that what we have now is good enough, even though it is different 15:10:57 .. from the process we have successfully followed for years including for IMSC and TTML 15:11:11 .. then why not try it? There's nothing that says what the disposition of comments looks like. 15:11:15 Nigel: But we can decide? 15:11:23 Thierry: I would like to decide with David present. 15:12:05 Nigel: It sounds like the response we need to give to David is as follows: 15:12:21 .. * We need a clearly set out list of comments and resolutions, with the response from the commenter for each. 15:12:27 Thierry: I think that's a good way forward. 15:12:49 Pierre: My point is just that we should not reinvent the process each time. 15:13:28 Nigel: Thierry please could you go back to David and explain that it's hard for the WG to 15:13:36 .. review the comments without a clearly set out list? 15:14:14 Thierry: Yes. Also we have time to do this if there's another WD to incorporate all the 15:14:26 .. comments previously received and for the new WD, and we should have time to review 15:14:38 .. those during TPAC. However David wants to go to CR before TPAC. 15:15:13 Nigel: Is there a proposed end date for the WD review period? 15:15:26 Thierry: David wanted the review to end in August and I said it's unlikely that we can do that 15:15:40 .. because first we need another WD mentioning that its a wide review with the end date, 15:15:49 .. so we have to publish that new document, then I have to send emails to groups 15:16:01 .. requesting review, then we should have at least 4 weeks of review because its summer. 15:16:19 .. For IMSC 1.0.1 we had a month and a half, for TTML2 we had 2 months, so for this one 15:16:29 .. we should have at least 4 weeks, which is the recommendation (not a must) in the W3C 15:16:31 .. Process. 15:16:51 Nigel: So even if they published today it would be the beginning of September at the 15:16:59 .. earliest before the review end period. 15:17:22 Thierry: Yes, however David is away at the moment. It could be that the Editors can 15:17:38 .. publish with the automatic tool or I could do it but I need to have a review end date at 15:17:54 .. least. Either we choose it today or we propose something to David or we wait for David 15:17:56 .. to return. 15:18:41 Nigel: I would propose at least 6 weeks given that its summer, but it would make sense 15:18:47 .. to have David's view. 15:19:08 Thierry: Can we agree on it? For me its the minimum given the new features added to that 15:19:39 .. spec. Silvia sent a list of the changes. 15:19:43 Nigel: Is that on public-tt? 15:19:58 Thierry: No, I can forward it. I asked her to make a list of the changes like we did for TTML2 15:20:09 .. so we can easily refer to the list to define what needs review. 15:20:32 .. She has already done that list. 15:20:57 Nigel: Is there a dependency on us reviewing the existing disposition of comments before 15:21:01 .. publishing a new WD? 15:21:16 Thierry: I don't think so, we need it to show the Director before moving to CR, and the 15:21:27 .. disposition will be a compilation of the comments from the first and second reviews. 15:21:59 Nigel: OK it seems that we have a consensus on 6 weeks based on those present today, 15:22:03 .. as the WD review period. 15:23:06 ACTION: tmichel to write to David and the CG saying we should publish a new WD with a 6 week review period. 15:23:06 Created ACTION-501 - Write to david and the cg saying we should publish a new wd with a 6 week review period. [on Thierry Michel - due 2017-08-10]. 15:23:35 ACTION: tmichel Explain to David that we need a more consistent Disposition of Comments for WebVTT. 15:23:36 Created ACTION-502 - Explain to david that we need a more consistent disposition of comments for webvtt. [on Thierry Michel - due 2017-08-10]. 15:24:34 Topic: TTML2 15:24:54 Nigel: I just want to mention that I joined the Privacy IG's meeting on Thursday last week 15:25:12 .. to discuss TTML2 and my notes are at: 15:25:31 -> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tt/2017Jul/0069.html TTML2 Horizontal Review - minutes from privacy WG today 15:26:38 Nigel: I don't think anyone in the meeting thought that any of the points raised were 15:26:46 .. particularly concerning but did think they are worth mentioning. 15:28:12 Topic: Future meetings 15:28:24 Nigel: Next week I've scheduled our meeting for 1 hour, then I'm away for 2 weeks, so unless 15:28:38 .. anyone wants to step in to chair then the default will be no meetings on 17th and 24th 15:28:49 .. August, returning on 31st August. 15:29:22 .. Okay, we're out of agenda for today, let's adjourn. Thanks everyone! 15:29:27 rrsagent, make minutes 15:29:27 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/08/03-tt-minutes.html nigel 15:34:18 Regrets+ Glenn 15:34:43 s/I can't connect to webex ;-(/ 15:34:50 s/webex is waiting for mit.webex.com and I can't connect .../ 15:48:24 s/github-bot,/github-bot: 15:51:07 s/make a wiki page/made a wiki page 15:52:59 rrsagent, make minutes 15:52:59 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/08/03-tt-minutes.html nigel 16:09:19 ScribeOption: -final -noEmbedDiagnostics 16:09:20 rrsagent, make minutes 16:09:20 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/08/03-tt-minutes.html nigel 16:40:59 Zakim has left #tt