14:00:01 RRSAgent has joined #tt 14:00:01 logging to http://www.w3.org/2017/09/28-tt-irc 14:00:03 RRSAgent, make logs public 14:00:03 Zakim has joined #tt 14:00:05 Meeting: Timed Text Working Group Teleconference 14:00:05 Date: 28 September 2017 14:00:24 scribe: nigel 14:00:27 Present: Nigel 14:00:31 Regrets: Glenn 14:00:34 Chair: Nigel 14:01:50 Present+ Cyril 14:02:27 Present+ Pierre 14:03:04 Present+ Andreas 14:03:41 Topic: This meeting 14:04:19 Nigel: Today we have any TPAC scheduling/agenda points, IMSC planning and requirements, 14:04:29 tmichel has joined #tt 14:05:46 Present+ Thierry 14:06:25 Nigel: and any other things Thierry? 14:06:36 Thierry: David mentioned that he is unable to join today, so I don't know if we will cover 14:06:44 .. WebVTT now that the review has ended. 14:06:47 cyril has joined #tt 14:07:51 Thierry: We can discuss the TTML2 HR process too. 14:08:07 Nigel: Okay, thanks. Any other points to raise today? 14:08:13 group: [no more agenda items] 14:08:29 Topic: TPAC 2017 planning 14:08:42 Nigel: Pierre, you contacted me in the week and requested a schedule change, which you've now 14:08:47 .. added to the wiki page - thank you. 14:09:07 -> https://www.w3.org/wiki/TimedText/tpac2017 TPAC 2017 TTWG wiki page 14:09:27 Nigel: The IMSC vNext work session is now on the Thursday morning. 14:09:43 Nigel: Any other schedule requests or agenda topic changes? 14:10:35 .. Seems like no. Please let me know if you want to dial in, or if you're attending in person 14:10:42 .. add your name to the participants list on the wiki page. 14:11:36 Nigel: Pierre, I'm conscious that I owe you an arrangement to discuss the demo stuff! 14:12:24 Topic: TTML2 Horizontal Review 14:12:26 action-506? 14:12:26 action-506 -- Thierry Michel to Draft a wiki page explaining our review and disposition steps and labels -- due 2017-09-21 -- OPEN 14:12:26 http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/tracker/actions/506 14:13:15 Thierry: I have updated the previous email and labels, as per the email sent yesterday. 14:13:26 .. The updated WR process page is: 14:13:38 -> https://www.w3.org/wiki/TimedText/TTML2_Wide_Review TTML2 Wide Review process 14:14:01 Thierry: Some new comments have been sent, by Pierre, so my next stage is to add the 14:14:14 .. labels to the repo and apply them to the relevant issues. I'll do that next. 14:14:59 action-506: [Meeting 2017-09-28] Thierry plans to add the GitHub labels shortly. 14:14:59 Notes added to action-506 Draft a wiki page explaining our review and disposition steps and labels. 14:15:17 Thierry: The last thing is that there are comments from commenters who have reviewed 14:15:29 .. TTML2 and said they were fine with it - APA did that and I think someone from an external 14:15:42 .. body said something. They're not raised as issues so they're not in GitHub. Should I put 14:15:54 .. them in with a link to the mailing list and say that they're resolved and agreed by the 14:16:08 .. commenter, so we can track them in the same place to show to the Director. 14:16:18 Nigel: I think that makes sense - a "no action" issue. 14:17:56 Nigel: Right, so last week's feedback on the process and labels has been processed, the 14:18:03 .. next step is to make it happen on GitHub. 14:18:43 .. I see that there are 2 days of review period left for TTML2. 14:19:02 .. We did receive some feedback from organisations saying that they will respond later. I 14:19:25 .. guess we will process feedback whenever it arrives. 14:19:54 Nigel: The TAG has been meeting and asked for an update on their feedback to TTML2, so 14:20:05 .. I added a comment to their tracking issue: 14:20:17 -> https://github.com/w3ctag/design-reviews/issues/138 TAG TTML2 tracking issue. 14:21:02 Topic: IMSC planning 14:21:38 Pierre: A bit of background: IMSC1 is one of the timed text formats supported by CMAF, 14:21:58 .. which is an MPEG specification 23000-19, which is being adopted by Microsoft, Apple, Netflix and others. 14:22:12 .. They are planning a new version of CMAF and they would ideally like to include a version 14:22:26 .. of IMSC. The main point they want to cover is the lack of ruby support. So there's interest 14:22:36 .. in moving as quickly as possible with IMSCv2, perhaps meeting the timeline of MPEG, which 14:22:53 .. meets in October. Something we should plan as an action is to communicate our timeline 14:23:02 .. to MPEG if we come up with one, ahead of their October meeting. 14:23:35 Nigel: It'd be helpful if they told us formally - it's a bit strange as an order of events to communicate with them in advance! 14:23:52 Pierre: Yes, one way we could do this is to tell them and other organisations about the work 14:24:09 .. that we're doing, and they could respond with their thoughts. 14:24:13 Nigel: Seems like a good idea to me. 14:24:49 Pierre: So with that interest in IMSCvNext, I've started the process by pushing to a new 14:24:59 .. repo to document the requirements. 14:25:31 pal has joined #tt 14:25:35 https://w3c.github.io/imsc-vnext-reqs/ 14:25:35 -> https://github.com/w3c/imsc-vnext-reqs IMSC v Next requirements document 14:26:44 Pierre: This is to get us started. I have some questions, so I've filed two issues. It is based 14:26:56 .. on what people have told me informally they are interested in. It is a first pass so input is 14:27:16 .. really welcome on those requirements, especially if we can link to detail use cases, requests 14:27:27 .. from other organisations etc. I don't expect the scope and overall goal for compatibility 14:27:31 .. with IMSC 1.0.1 to change. 14:27:45 .. The reason I've gone ahead and published this is I'm also making a first stab at the spec 14:28:00 .. itself based on those requirements, which I hope to have ready later today. This is to make 14:28:16 .. it less abstract. In the process I think it will also highlight potential issues with TTML2 14:28:24 .. and other things we ought to fix sooner rather than later. 14:28:54 Cyril: One thing about CMAF - CMAF is always creating amendments, so there will be more 14:29:10 .. later for sure. I'm not aware of anyone submitting the idea of having a new version with 14:29:24 .. IMSC2 yet. I don't think there's an urgency for the October meeting as opposed to the 14:29:31 .. January or February meeting. 14:30:14 Nigel: I see there's nothing about the HRM - does that need to be updated to take into 14:30:18 .. account the new features? 14:30:35 Pierre: That's on my to-do list - it has to be addressed just as a matter of consistency in the spec. 14:31:05 Nigel: I think from the requirements perspective we may just want a statement that a 14:31:12 .. hypothetical render model is required. 14:31:32 Pierre: That's already included in the scope given IMSC 1.0.1 compatibility. I expect there 14:31:38 .. to be an HRM in IMSC v.next. 14:32:13 Nigel: The other thing is we probably need to explain what we actually need rather than 14:32:21 .. just referencing TTML2 feature designators. 14:32:33 Pierre: We have to strike a middle ground here. 14:33:45 .. Ideally we'd be able to point to external documentation explaining the requirement source. 14:34:00 .. For instance I notice in TTML2 there are multiple levels of ruby support, including nested 14:34:16 .. rubies. One of my obvious questions is do we really need nested rubies - hopefully we 14:34:23 .. will be able to get answers to those questions. 14:34:45 .. Japanese language support is overwhelmingly a desired feature for IMSC v.next. 14:36:50 Nigel: Okay, what are the requirements? 14:36:55 .. 1. Propose some liaisons. 14:37:05 .. 2. Review the requirements documents. 14:37:20 Pierre: After I've published the first draft spec today I'll be happy to propose a roadmap and 14:37:28 .. start working on liaisons to other groups. 14:37:30 Nigel: Thank you. 14:38:04 Nigel: Just to be clear, I believe the goal for the IMSC v Next requirements is that we publish 14:38:07 .. it as a WG Note. 14:38:14 Pierre: Yes, that's what it says in the SOTD. 14:39:47 ACTION: nigel Add IMSC vNext repo to agenda, board, github-bot etc 14:39:47 Created ACTION-507 - Add imsc vnext repo to agenda, board, github-bot etc [on Nigel Megitt - due 2017-10-05]. 14:40:01 Nigel: Thierry, I might ask you for some help with that. 14:40:06 Thierry: OK 14:40:24 Pierre: And I've decided the least evil option is to put IMSC v.next into a sub-folder of the 14:40:37 .. existing IMSC repo, because it makes it easy to share issues and move them across versions. 14:40:57 .. I expect the versions will share common tools, files etc. 14:41:03 Nigel: That makes sense to me. 14:41:19 .. Would you use labels to identify target specs? 14:41:39 Pierre: Yes. All the old issues deferred from IMSC v1 have a v2 milestone against them. 14:42:03 .. Might be okay to use labels instead or as well. 14:42:28 Nigel: Yes, we just need a clear model - milestones are for events in time, labels for what they are. 14:42:50 Pierre: I'll take care of that, I'll add a label to the v2 milestone issues and then we can move 14:42:58 .. them to new IMSCvnext milestones as needed. 14:43:02 .. I'll do it right now. 14:43:04 Nigel: Thank you. 14:46:11 Topic: fillLineGap 14:46:20 github-bot: https://github.com/w3c/ttml2/issues/429 14:46:32 github: https://github.com/w3c/ttml2/issues/429 14:47:04 Andreas: Thanks for raising this, I support it, and wanted to check it myself. 14:47:26 .. As itts:fillLineGap is a complicated attribute, I see problems implementing it, and in 14:47:37 .. compatibility, so it makes sense to keep the namespace. 14:47:54 Pierre: We might do something subtler like reference IMSC 1.0.1 from TTML2, and then 14:48:07 .. remove it from IMSCv.next. What's really bad is today the syntax and semantics don't 14:48:50 .. match. 14:48:53 s/syntax and/ 14:49:11 .. It's hard to understand if the TTML2 semantics are the same as the IMSC 1.0.1 semantics 14:49:16 .. because the wording is so different. 14:50:10 .. Either the wording is insufficient in IMSC 1.0.1 and should be fixed there or it should be 14:50:30 .. made the same in TTML2. Implementers need to know that the behaviour is the same. 14:50:59 Nigel: Okay, alignment is the issue here - we should define something with the same 14:51:02 .. semantics in the same way. 14:51:08 Pierre: I'd extend that to the namespace too. 14:51:21 Andreas: I mentioned it before - there has been a bad experience changing namespaces 14:51:35 .. going from the ttaf namespace to the ttml namespace, which broke things unnecessarily. 14:52:34 Nigel: I can see the issue about namespaces - ideally the profile should be a pure profile 14:52:50 .. of the spec, and not have this zigzagging up between the profile and the base spec. 14:53:05 Pierre: Yes, in the future, maybe we just have the definition in TTML2 and remove it from 14:53:13 .. IMSC, just referencing it by feature designator. 14:54:12 SUMMARY: Majority view in favour of aligning semantics and syntax between IMSC 1.0.1 and TTML2, partly constrained by existing implementation work and adoption. 14:54:23 Present+ Silvia 14:55:05 Topic: TTML2 activeArea syntax and semantics 14:55:11 github: https://github.com/w3c/ttml2/issues/428 14:55:47 Pierre: Identical comment to that on ttml2#429 14:57:21 Nigel: I thought there was already an agreement to adopt the offset and extent syntax 14:57:33 .. in TTML2 - if there's no issue we should bring that in here. 14:58:31 SUMMARY: Majority view in favour of aligning semantics and syntax between IMSC 1.0.1 and TTML2, partly constrained by existing implementation work and adoption. 15:00:47 Topic: WebVTT review feedback 15:01:02 Thierry: I have invited David Singer to Chair this part of the meeting but unfortunately he 15:01:18 .. had a conflict and could not attend today. Thank you Silvia for joining. We've been through 15:01:29 .. 2 reviews for WebVTT, one some years ago and a recent one that ended a few days ago. 15:01:40 .. From the first review, most of the comments were handled and the spec was updated 15:01:52 .. but what was missing from the review itself to show a Disposition of Comments document 15:02:07 .. to the Director, an agreement for the commenter. I'm not sure we have that for each 15:02:19 .. comment. The second review that ended a week ago, we have a fair number of comments 15:02:37 .. and some discussion has started in the CG. Silvia, do you have an idea how you plan to 15:02:42 .. handle those comments, if that was discussed already? 15:02:53 Silvia: The biggest problem we have right now is that the Editor has just stepped down, 15:03:05 .. who would be the key person to address those comments. I've offered to take on a little 15:03:21 .. bit of effort there however I don't have enough time to do the spec justice because my 15:03:33 .. full time job is not related to WebVTT anymore. So I'm going to meet David this afternoon 15:03:51 .. to see how we can address that. Next week at FOMS we may find someone interested who 15:04:02 .. can step up as an Editor and help us address the issues. Most of the issues have come 15:04:26 .. from Nigel from the BBC and Andreas from IRT, both of whom are present here. 15:04:39 .. Would you be able to give a quick summary, and the priorities? That might really help 15:04:47 .. us identify who can best help in resolving those issues. 15:05:12 Andreas: Thanks for your response and answering to the previous comments, around 2 years ago. 15:05:28 .. The new issues I filed have been part of the syntax analysis of WebVTT as written in the 15:05:40 .. email and of course some of them are more generic and not always concerned with 15:05:56 .. changes since the last review. But I also see that most of the issues are not so critical, 15:06:12 .. it is more to give a hint that there may be a problem, and to get an answer to fix or not 15:06:25 .. to fix. That would be okay in most of the cases. I think also from the discussions on 15:06:40 .. GitHub issues, the missing support for text color if there is a non-CSS conformance class 15:06:55 .. is not acceptable for accessibility so that's definitely a big concern that really needs to 15:06:57 .. be fixed. 15:07:13 Silvia: Okay, there's a couple of things that both of you mentioned that have been discussed 15:07:26 .. for a long time. We'd much rather have browser vendors implement support for the basic 15:07:50 .. functionality we have right now than implement new features rather than delay the spec. 15:08:01 Andreas: I agree, and partly don't agree, especially for text colour. 15:08:11 Silvia: That's why I want to know which things really need to be fixed. 15:08:24 Andreas: For the discussion, I made it clear that this is a really important feature for 15:08:37 .. accessibility in most of the countries in Europe for example, so this really needs to be done. 15:08:44 +1 15:08:59 Andreas: An issue I had also was the decision to be based on browser support. If the 15:09:14 .. browsers decide not to support it then the browsers can be closed for the time being. 15:09:24 .. If there are other stakeholders, that should not be the deciding factor. 15:09:44 Silvia: I was with you on that. The two previous Editors had more of a focus on browsers 15:09:59 .. than anyone else involved in the process. Maybe we can find the next Editor, and I'm 15:10:09 .. more open to fixing those things right now. Certainly all of those comments that have 15:10:27 .. been filed will help fix those things. 15:10:43 Silvia: Nigel - I know you have a lot of things so thank you for the effort. 15:14:50 Nigel: Ok, no problem. [fails to scribe] I think from a UK audience perspective I second 15:15:02 .. the need to support colours, but I would also highlight the positioning features and 15:15:18 .. the comprehensibility of the spec. I know you pushed back on my comment about 15:15:31 .. algorithmic specification, but maybe there's a middle ground of refactoring the big 15:15:49 .. monolithic algorithm into smaller units each of which makes sense by itself. 15:16:02 .. In particular the interplay between the two positioning mechanisms is very hard to understand. 15:16:20 Andreas: I made similar comments before and I agree about positioning and how easy to 15:16:37 .. understand. I know Philip and Simon mentioned that the spec doesn't have to be an 15:16:44 .. explainer or user guide, but maybe that can be done separately. 15:17:00 Silvia: A couple of things to be aware of with the WebVTT spec. It strongly follows the way 15:17:15 .. the HTML spec was written. The algorithmic part that is complicated to read is really not 15:17:31 .. the part that authors need to read. They need to understand the syntax and a user guide, 15:17:42 .. which is something that other people can write to explain in simple words and maybe 15:17:58 .. for restricted use cases how to do best practice for users. What the spec is trying to do, 15:18:12 .. which is why the algorithmic approach is so important, is to give implementers a unified 15:18:23 .. approach to implementing it so everyone implements an interoperable version. That's 15:18:32 .. the goal, so its what we are trying to optimise in the spec. 15:18:43 .. Maybe with the positioning what we can do is make it much clearer in the earlier sections 15:18:57 .. in the spec what the cue model and the region model is. I though we had improved that 15:19:12 .. but I admit I haven't had the time to read in detail all of your comments Nigel. As an 15:19:26 .. outcome of all the feedback I think we can improve the readability. It's great to hear that 15:19:39 .. positioning and colour are the things to focus on. I take on board the idea of breaking 15:19:51 .. up the algorithms some more. I'm going to look for someone who can take that on as 15:20:48 .. the Editor. That's really useful, thank you. 15:26:15 Silvia: I really wanted this opportunity have this conversation with both of you. They are the 15:26:29 .. key feedback we got so I wanted to address that. What I need to know now from Thierry 15:26:41 .. is what are the next steps so that we can progress this to a proper standard, which is 15:26:49 .. what the community has been asking for for a while. 15:27:13 Thierry: The way we're working with a WG and a CG is pretty specific, so we have to invent 15:27:24 .. our own ways of working together. What we have done is for the first review for the CG 15:27:36 .. to discuss the comments and once resolved approve them in the WG. I think we should 15:27:46 .. follow the same procedure here. I think we will still use GitHub and we have a wiki page 15:27:58 .. explaining the status of each comment. For example also for TTML2 we have designed 15:28:09 .. a labelling system in order to mark the comments. We could use something similar for 15:28:12 .. WebVTT if you'd like. 15:28:14 Silvia: oka 15:28:20 s/oka/okay 15:28:33 Thiery: When the comments are finally resolved and responded to then we have to produce 15:28:44 .. a final disposition of comments including both the reviews. 15:29:03 .. Then it's for the WG to agree to transition to CR with some discussion of the CR exit 15:29:22 .. criteria, and then we will request transition and maybe discuss with the Director. Then 15:29:40 .. during CR we need a test suite and demonstrate that we fulfil the exit criteria. 15:29:59 Silvia: We have a test suite, so I think that can go ahead. I assume the WG will want to 15:30:09 .. review the comments. Is there anyone else planning to provide comments? 15:30:24 Thierry: The review is closed since September 22. If we do have a comment it will be 15:30:38 .. difficult to refuse it but I don't think we will get that many comments in. 15:30:48 Silvia: So it's a matter of addressing the comments we have and agreeing the resolutions. 15:31:27 Nigel: I don't think I've seen any horizontal review comments at all - is that correct? 15:31:38 Thierry: Yes, we requested comments but didn't get any responses. 15:31:51 Silvia: For the first review we got heaps of feedback e.g. on i18n and resolved all their 15:32:01 .. issues so I think that may be the reason why there's no new feedback. 15:32:16 Thierry: I'd agree with that, and also, we did trigger a Horizontal Review to the appropriate 15:32:26 .. groups and I also reminded the groups about a week before the closure of the review 15:32:31 .. period so I think we're safe. 15:32:49 Silvia: We did have feedback on one accessibility feature that hasn't made its way into the 15:33:11 .. GitHub repo yet. That was for the alt text on the image. We need to make a change to that. 15:33:19 Thierry: That's really editorial. 15:33:32 .. Yes, they said they'd reviewed the spec and didn't find anything else wrong. 15:33:56 Silvia: Cool, so David and I will meet and figure out the next steps on the Editor and how to 15:34:06 .. address all the comments and get back to you, and I'm also going to try to get the CG 15:34:18 .. involved. So I guess that's about as much as we can do right now. 15:34:39 Thierry: We should allow some time to discuss WebVTT during TPAC and I hope David 15:34:49 .. will be there and be able to Chair and have other people from the CG. 15:35:02 Silvia: I can't make it though I could maybe join remotely if necessary. 15:35:50 .. There's 8 hours between California and Australia. If you can make it at a time I can join 15:35:53 .. I'd be happy to join. 15:36:48 Nigel: I've made the request for a speaker phone on the AV equipment survey. If you can 15:37:05 .. add your name to the TTWG TPAC 2017 wiki page and any constraints on timing that 15:37:08 .. would be very helpful. 15:37:15 Silvia: Okay, I will. 15:37:47 Cyril: Do we have any idea when we want the comments to be addressed, in terms of timeline? 15:37:54 .. Maybe it's too early to say. 15:37:58 Silvia: When is TPAC? 15:38:04 Cyril: 6th November. 15:38:21 Silvia: I'm sure David will want to move fast. Let's see what I can get done with the WG and 15:38:33 .. the conference next week. I'm going to target 6th November with progress even if not 15:38:48 .. all of the comments. It's a good point, thanks Cyril - without timelines it will never happen. 15:39:23 Topic: Meeting close 15:40:11 Nigel: Thanks everyone, we've completed all our agenda items for today. [adjourns meeting] 15:40:14 rrsagent, make minutes 15:40:14 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/09/28-tt-minutes.html nigel 16:04:11 s/MSC v Next requirements document/MSC v Next requirements document GitHub repository 16:05:02 s/Okay, what are the requirements?/Okay, what are the actions? 16:05:44 s|github-bot: https://github.com/w3c/ttml2/issues/429| 16:07:11 s/+1/Nigel: +1 16:07:42 s/fails to scribe/fails to scribe while also talking 16:08:31 s/I though we had improved that/I thought we had improved that 16:11:31 i/I'm sure David will want/TPAC is 6-10 Nov, TTWG F2F is 9-10 Nov 16:11:42 rrsagent, make minutes 16:11:42 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/09/28-tt-minutes.html nigel 16:13:48 ScribeOptions: -final -noEmbedDiagnostics 16:13:50 rrsagent, make minutes 16:13:50 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/09/28-tt-minutes.html nigel 16:17:24 pal_ has joined #tt 16:37:03 pal_ has left #tt 17:06:26 Zakim has left #tt