- From: Courtney Kennedy <ckennedy@apple.com>
- Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2014 17:35:09 -0700
- To: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
- Cc: Nigel Megitt <nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk>, Timed Text Working Group <public-tt@w3.org>
Silvia, Thanks for these notes. My team is not trying reinvent the test suite approach, but instead we are focusing on creating test vtt files to exercise the features in the spec. We will add our content to the existing github repository once we have it done. Courtney On Sep 11, 2014, at 5:12 PM, Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 1:12 AM, Nigel Megitt <nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk> wrote: >> Thanks all for attending today's TTWG meeting. Minutes in HTML format can be >> found at: http://www.w3.org/2014/09/11-tt-minutes.html >> >> We made one Resolution: RESOLUTION: We will not update SDP-US for TTML2. >> The provisional period for this resolution under our Decision Policy will >> end on Thursday 25th September. >> >> Minutes in text format: >> >> [1]W3C >> >> [1] http://www.w3.org/ >> >> - DRAFT - >> >> Timed Text Working Group Teleconference >> >> 11 Sep 2014 >> >> See also: [2]IRC log >> >> [2] http://www.w3.org/2014/09/11-tt-irc >> >> Attendees >> >> Present >> pal, nigel, jdsmith, courtney, tmichel >> >> Regrets >> glenn, andreas >> >> Chair >> nigel >> >> Scribe >> nigel >> >> Contents >> >> * [3]Topics >> 1. [4]This meeting >> 2. [5]Geneva F2F September >> 3. [6]Santa Clara F2F October (TPAC) >> 4. [7]Action items >> 5. [8]Issues >> 6. [9]IMSC 1 Issues >> * [10]Summary of Action Items >> __________________________________________________________ >> >> <trackbot> Date: 11 September 2014 >> >> <scribe> scribeNick: nigel >> >> This meeting >> >> Geneva F2F September >> >> [11]https://www.w3.org/wiki/TimedText/geneva2014 >> >> [11] https://www.w3.org/wiki/TimedText/geneva2014 >> >> courtney: My goal is to have sample code that will map from >> TTML to WebVTT and back the other way and also a paper that >> ... describes how to do the mapping both ways. I've made a lot >> of progress - it won't be finished next week. I want to go >> through the TTML attributes. >> ... Andreas has also been working on a mapping and we've been >> coordinating our efforts. He's focussed on the EBU-TT-D profile >> primarily. He also wants to present his work. >> ... I've identified some areas in both specs where there is no >> equivalent, and it would be good to highlight those. > > Good. I am curious about those, too. > > >> nigel: +1 >> ... Is there a good version of WebVTT we should be referencing? >> >> courtney: I'm using the most recent draft, which I think will >> become 1.0. >> >> <courtney> [12]http://dev.w3.org/html5/webvtt/ >> >> [12] http://dev.w3.org/html5/webvtt/ > > Yes, that's appropriate. > > >> nigel: Great, we'll use that as our baseline dated on Tuesday. >> ... Without wishing to steal Frans's thunder, he tells me EBU >> has offered to sponsor lunch on both days. Thanks EBU! >> ... I'll ask for it at 12:30. >> ... On day 2 we have a write-a-test hackathon - any thoughts on >> the test format? >> >> courtney: There's no test suite for WebVTT yet - my team is >> working on that. > > There is a whole test suite at > https://github.com/w3c/web-platform-tests/tree/master/webvtt . > Also, there are in-band WebM files at > https://github.com/w3c/web-platform-tests/tree/master/media if you > need it from in-band. > > I hope you're not trying to create a separate way of building a test > suite - that's the now standard automated test suite approach in that > github repository. > > It would be great if you could contribute though and help fix any > bugs! That would also help work towards taking WebVTT to CR. > > Cheers, > Silvia. > >> ... The TTML test suite covers a lot of cases, so one thought I >> had is to convert them all to WebVTT. >> ... We're also looking at it from the WebVTT spec perspective. >> >> nigel: I understood that Wednesday's work will be for testing >> the mappings rather than each spec. >> ... How much time do we need to set aside for IMSC 1 blocking >> issues on Wednesday? >> >> pal: I think there's only one real issue for discussion, which >> is #overflow because there's a difference in understanding of >> the impact. >> ... On the other ones, largely from the comments so far I don't >> expect much discussion. >> ... On Change Proposal 28 that's something I'm not sure we need >> any more. We may be able to remove that. >> >> nigel: I'll re-examine CP28 and see if I can withdraw it. >> >> pal: Without that I think that leaves Issue-339, and I don't >> expect us to need more than 1 hour on that. >> ... I'll be happy to drive the IMSC 1 issues on Wednesday >> morning. >> >> nigel: We also have an agenda item on our TTWG process. >> >> pal: Did we resolve that? >> >> nigel: The consensus call had an end date of Wednesday. I >> intend to raise it on Wednesday and conclude the topic with a >> resolution. So far I've heard no negative comments. >> >> Santa Clara F2F October (TPAC) >> >> [13]http://www.w3.org/wiki/TimedText/tpac2014 >> >> [13] http://www.w3.org/wiki/TimedText/tpac2014 >> >> nigel: The structure of each day is a little different than >> last year - WG meetings will run 0830-1100 and 1500-1800 with >> lunch and ad hoc meetings from 1100-1500. >> ... Please let me know if you need a telco facility. >> >> pal: I suggest planning for one, and not using it if we don't >> need it. >> >> tmichel: I suggest using it for specific slots rather than the >> entire day. >> ... There's no difference in terms of cost but we need to >> reserve the speaker phone. >> >> nigel: I'll amend our wbs survey and reserve it. >> ... I expect the agenda to be TTML2 and the TTML<-->WebVTT >> mapping. >> >> pal: I suggest we take 30 minutes next week to discuss the CR >> process and next steps and timeline for IMSC 1, based on >> whether we use the 2005 or 2014 process. >> >> nigel: good point. >> >> Action items >> >> action-325? >> >> <trackbot> action-325 -- Pierre-Anthony Lemieux to Check if >> respec has been updated for the 2014 w3c process -- due >> 2014-09-11 -- PENDINGREVIEW >> >> <trackbot> >> [14]http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/tracker/actions/325 >> >> [14] http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/tracker/actions/325 >> >> pal: Respec has been given an additional config option to >> select process, so that's all done as far as I can tell. >> >> close action-325 >> >> <trackbot> Closed action-325. >> >> action-322? >> >> <trackbot> action-322 -- Jerry Smith to Indicate preference for >> updating sdp-us for ttml2 -- due 2014-08-21 -- PENDINGREVIEW >> >> <trackbot> >> [15]http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/tracker/actions/322 >> >> [15] http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/tracker/actions/322 >> >> jdsmith: I think focusing on IMSC rather than updating SDP-US >> is the better path. We're the only current implementor that I >> know of and I don't think we see value in revving the spec or >> the implementation. >> >> RESOLUTION: We will not update SDP-US for TTML2. >> >> close action-322 >> >> <trackbot> Closed action-322. >> >> action-324? >> >> <trackbot> action-324 -- Pierre-Anthony Lemieux to Draft a note >> for imsc 1 progressivelydecodable to make concrete what authors >> should take into account -- due 2014-08-21 -- PENDINGREVIEW >> >> <trackbot> >> [16]http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/tracker/actions/324 >> >> [16] http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/tracker/actions/324 >> >> close action-324 >> >> <trackbot> Closed action-324. >> >> Issues >> >> issue-344? >> >> <trackbot> issue-344 -- Add a clarification note expressing >> intent behind unqualified attribute names -- raised >> >> <trackbot> >> [17]http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/tracker/issues/344 >> >> [17] http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/tracker/issues/344 >> >> reopen issue-344 >> >> <trackbot> Re-opened issue-344. >> >> IMSC 1 Issues >> >> issue-340? >> >> <trackbot> issue-340 -- Make clear that the use of the >> ttp:profile attribute is not required. -- pending review >> >> <trackbot> >> [18]http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/tracker/issues/340 >> >> [18] http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/tracker/issues/340 >> >> pal: I made two changes to implement this, both a note and a >> change of wording from 'profile SHALL be associated' to >> 'profile is associated'. >> >> <scribe> ACTION: frans Review resolution to Issue-340 and add >> review comments to issue [recorded in >> [19]http://www.w3.org/2014/09/11-tt-minutes.html#action01] >> >> <trackbot> Created ACTION-326 - Review resolution to issue-340 >> and add review comments to issue [on Frans de Jong - due >> 2014-09-18]. >> >> issue-343? >> >> <trackbot> issue-343 -- Processing of non-IMSC/TTML namespace >> elements -- pending review >> >> <trackbot> >> [20]http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/tracker/issues/343 >> >> [20] http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/tracker/issues/343 >> >> <scribe> ACTION: frans Review resolution to Issue-343 and add >> review comments to issue [recorded in >> [21]http://www.w3.org/2014/09/11-tt-minutes.html#action02] >> >> <trackbot> Created ACTION-327 - Review resolution to issue-343 >> and add review comments to issue [on Frans de Jong - due >> 2014-09-18]. >> >> pal: We have some issues making blanket statements about >> foreign namespaces here - the rule is simpler: if it's not >> forbidden then it's allowed. >> ... I couldn't find a way to word it relating to foreign >> namespaces without getting really convoluted. >> ... Because there are some things from specified foreign >> namespaces from SMPTE and EBU that are permitted. >> ... The next issues aren't captured yet in the tracker because >> I wanted to make sure that the reflector didn't generate >> further comments. >> ... Those are the three issues I emailed about yesterday: >> issue-332, issue-342, issue-339. >> >> issue-332? >> >> <trackbot> issue-332 -- #cellResolution support -- open >> >> <trackbot> >> [22]http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/tracker/issues/332 >> >> [22] http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/tracker/issues/332 >> >> pal: I don't expect much further concern on this. The >> background is simple: IMSC 1 forbids ttp:cellResolution. The >> request was for any permitted value to be used. >> ... That only affects the maths for the c metric, and there's >> no further impact. So the proposal is to lift the prohibition. >> >> nigel: LGTM >> >> pal: I plan to implement these changes if I don't hear any more >> in the next few days. >> >> issue-342? >> >> <trackbot> issue-342 -- Add ebutts:multiRowAlign and >> ebutts:linePadding attributes to the IMSC Text Profile -- open >> >> <trackbot> >> [23]http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/tracker/issues/342 >> >> [23] http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/tracker/issues/342 >> >> pal: These extensions are intended to allow timed text >> presentation of a style that's consistent with European >> practice, and perhaps elsewhere in the world. >> ... This does require adding a feature to the IMSC layout >> engine, but not to the HRM. It looks like a processor can >> ignore them and still yield reasonable results. My suggestion >> is to add those features, >> ... even as a SHALL, and move forward with that. The only >> caveat is these features may appear in TTML2. >> >> nigel: This is analogous to the IMSC 1 situation with >> forcedDisplay, in that TTML2 may do it differently and IMSC 2 >> would adopt the TTML2 way. >> >> Issue-342: Make sure to include a note along the lines of the >> forcedDisplay note that TTML2 and IMSC 2 may do it differently. >> >> <trackbot> Notes added to Issue-342 Add ebutts:multiRowAlign >> and ebutts:linePadding attributes to the IMSC Text Profile. >> >> issue-339? >> >> <trackbot> issue-339 -- Allow the use of #overflow -- open >> >> <trackbot> >> [24]http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/tracker/issues/339 >> >> [24] http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/tracker/issues/339 >> >> pal: F2F discussion may be needed here. IMSC 1 forbids >> tts:overflow="visible" because that mutes the specified extent >> of the region. >> ... This has profound implications for the HRM and because from >> an authorial standpoint, to me and others, the author has no >> idea how big the region will eventually be. >> ... I'm also trying to understand what the use cases are for >> tts:overflow="visible" provides a benefit. >> >> nigel: There's a tension here between region size and font >> size, where rendered font sizes can not be known at authoring >> time. >> ... Overflow allows for some safety there. >> >> pal: That's what reference fonts are designed to address. >> >> courtney: What about when implementations allow users to >> override settings? >> >> pal: In that case the implementation would need to know how to >> expand the regions to compensate, if, say, the font size is >> doubled. >> ... I'm happy to add a note to the spec to explain this. >> >> nigel: At first a reflector response along those lines (i.e. >> about reference fonts) would be helpful. >> >> pal: Notwithstanding CP28 I think this concludes all the >> outstanding notes on IMSC, so we have a realistic shot at >> moving along on our proposed timeline - thank you all. >> >> nigel: adjourns meeting - thanks all, and see you at 0900 at >> the EBU in Geneva! >> >> Summary of Action Items >> >> [NEW] ACTION: frans Review resolution to Issue-340 and add >> review comments to issue [recorded in >> [25]http://www.w3.org/2014/09/11-tt-minutes.html#action01] >> [NEW] ACTION: frans Review resolution to Issue-343 and add >> review comments to issue [recorded in >> [26]http://www.w3.org/2014/09/11-tt-minutes.html#action02] >> >> [End of minutes] >> __________________________________________________________ >> >> >> Minutes formatted by David Booth's [27]scribe.perl version >> 1.138 ([28]CVS log) >> $Date: 2014-09-11 15:07:25 $ >> __________________________________________________________ >> >> [27] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm >> [28] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/ >> >> > ____________ Courtney Kennedy 408.974.3386, mobile: 408.771.8615 Engineering Manager, Media Sharing Apple, Inc.
Received on Friday, 12 September 2014 00:35:39 UTC