- From: Nigel Megitt <nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk>
- Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2014 15:22:16 +0000
- To: W3C Public TTWG <public-tt@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <D0659F06.148A4%nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk>
Thanks all for a productive meeting today. Minutes in HTML format can be found at: http://www.w3.org/2014/10/16-tt-minutes.html
There were 2 resolutions, for which the provisional period under our Decision process ends on 30th October:
MIME type subparameter:
RESOLUTION: We will adopt the parameter named processorProfiles
WebVTT short name:
RESOLUTION: At the time we resolve to publish as an FPWD we will use the short name webvtt1
The minutes in text format:
[1]W3C
[1] http://www.w3.org/
Timed Text Working Group Teleconference
16 Oct 2014
See also: [2]IRC log
[2] http://www.w3.org/2014/10/16-tt-irc
Attendees
Present
jdsmith, nigel, glenn, pal, Mike, courtney, Frans,
dsinger, Thierry
Regrets
Chair
nigel, dsinger (for WebVTT agendum)
Scribe
nigel
Contents
* [3]Topics
1. [4]This meeting
2. [5]Santa Clara F2F October (TPAC)
3. [6]Action items
4. [7]Issues
5. [8]Change Proposals
6. [9]MIME type processor profiles short codes parameter
7. [10]WebVTT publication
8. [11]AOB
* [12]Summary of Action Items
__________________________________________________________
<trackbot> Date: 16 October 2014
<scribe> scribeNick: nigel
This meeting
Santa Clara F2F October (TPAC)
[13]http://www.w3.org/wiki/TimedText/tpac2014
[13] http://www.w3.org/wiki/TimedText/tpac2014
nigel: goes through agenda as currently drafted.
glenn: I may need to leave slightly early on the Monday to
attend another event.
courtney: Maybe we should reserve a short period for WebVTT
publication discussions
nigel: Lists the applicants to be observers.
... I intend to accept all the observer applications.
... I'll send the emails tomorrow
... It turns out that advanced registration is now closed, but
I believe that registration is available on the day in person.
Action items
action-338?
<trackbot> action-338 -- Glenn Adams to Update change proposal
1 to reflect new approach and move to closed-implemented. --
due 2014-10-16 -- PENDINGREVIEW
<trackbot>
[14]http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/tracker/actions/338
[14] http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/tracker/actions/338
glenn: That's done.
close action-338
<trackbot> Closed action-338.
action-339?
<trackbot> action-339 -- Glenn Adams to Fill in the relevant
sections of change proposal 12 and move it to
closed-implemented. -- due 2014-10-16 -- PENDINGREVIEW
<trackbot>
[15]http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/tracker/actions/339
[15] http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/tracker/actions/339
glenn: That's done.
close action-339
<trackbot> Closed action-339.
action-340?
<trackbot> action-340 -- Glenn Adams to Update change proposal
24 and move to closed-implemented -- due 2014-10-16 --
PENDINGREVIEW
<trackbot>
[16]http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/tracker/actions/340
[16] http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/tracker/actions/340
glenn: That's done.
close action-340
<trackbot> Closed action-340.
Issues
issue-335?
<trackbot> issue-335 -- In order to handle offsets between
start time in TTML docs and start time in video, allow negative
times to be used in fragment begin times. -- pending review
<trackbot>
[17]http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/tracker/issues/335
[17] http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/tracker/issues/335
nigel: We've had quite a bit of debate about this and decided
to defer this until TPAC
glenn: I'll prepare a short presentation on this for TPAC.
Change Proposals
glenn: The only ones that require a significant amount of
conceptual work and editing is the HTML5 mapping.
... The raw content is outlined already, so I hope not to have
to do much conceptual work there.
... Before we go too far in the Rec process though we need some
implementation support
... for the HTML mapping, so I need to do some work on that.
I've already outlined some
... tasks on TTV to allow me to do some experiments with HTML
mapping, which would be very useful.
... I'm also refining the ISD mapping process, which is the
other area I need to spend
... some time on: the semantics and creation procedure. There's
some material there
... already derived from TTML1. Implementation work is
progressing on that, and it
... will help document the algorithm.
nigel: Is that for a Change Proposal?
glenn: It may come under Distribution and is also a
pre-requisite for the HTML5 mapping too.
nigel: Do we need to liaise with the HTML WG on that?
glenn: I hope not!
... The only reason we might want to is if there's a specific
issue we may want to
... discuss with them. I'm not aware of any. I'm not making any
normative use of, e.g.
... the TextTrackCue APIs. THere's an open issue on HTML5
regarding the DataCue
... interface but that won't impede us here.
nigel: I was wondering if we were headed towards an HTMLCue.
glenn: I'm hoping we don't need to add that into TTML2. We have
some pre-draft specs, for TTML1 and TTML2 APIs
... which will probably make reference to those. When we make
further progress with
... those specs that issue will come up more.
nigel: We don't have those in our charter at the moment.
glenn: They're generally under TTML2 but not specifically
marked as Rec Track deliverables.
jdsmith: TextTrackCue isn't really in a position now to be used
for TTML now.
... Should we have a TTMLCue or something like that?
glenn: That's the question, it may not be the right time to
discuss it now.
jdsmith: Should we track that as an issue in the TTWG? It's not
in any of our specs now.
glenn: It's implicitly under the TTML API level 1 and 2 because
they make use of TextTrackCue
... and define a TTMLCue interface. That's part of that
discussion if we're going to
... move forward to Rec on that area.
<glenn>
[18]https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/ttml/raw-file/default/ttml1-api/Over
view.html
[18] https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/ttml/raw-file/default/ttml1-api/Overview.html
Thierry: Apologies for joining late
<glenn>
[19]https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/ttml/raw-file/default/ttml2-api/Over
view.html
[19] https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/ttml/raw-file/default/ttml2-api/Overview.html
MIME type processor profiles short codes parameter
nigel: We need to get to a message that we can send to MPEG.
dsinger: We have that: TTWG will define one or more parameters
to indicate the dialect or sub-brand of TTML.
... We don't need to declare the format for that right now.
... For example application/ttml+xml;[subparameter]
... and the TTWG is responsible for defining [subparameter]
mike: We've agreed the syntax too, we just need to agree on the
name of the parameter.
... I'll draft a message to send to MPEG.
nigel: We've already got time set aside at TPAC to look at the
registry page. Are there any other actions?
Mike: We should go ahead and post the response.
dsinger: Let's write a contribution from me and Mike to submit
at MPEG rather than a liaison that might take a while to get
through.
... On the profile name, there are some proposals: procprofs,
rprofiles, what else?
glenn: I vote for codecs
dsinger: That's used elsewhere for H-264 etc.
glenn: In this case it's codecs related to TTML.
dsinger: It's not a formal problem, just one of being
informative.
nigel: We need to conclude that we're not re-using "profile".
dsinger: I'd rather not redefine it.
glenn: We shouldn't touch that.
nigel: Presumably a new parameter should have a reasonably
short name.
dsinger: That's why I suggested procprofs.
nigel: Me too.
Mike: In TTML2 do we have processor profiles or content
profiles?
... For interpreting the "profiles" parameter.
glenn: It is a processor profile.
mike: I would offer that procprofile is more confusing.
dsinger: What's the equivalent name inside the document?
glenn: It's ttp:processorProfiles but it doesn't take short
codes.
Mike: profile has effectively been redefined already to be
processor profile. We need a new label for the new syntax.
glenn: The original profile parameter in TTML1 referred to a
single profile only, not multiple.
... It was a little vague on whether it meant content or
processor profile. We've
... deprecated it in TTML2 and added processorProfiles and
contentProfiles to
... distinguish those two uses.
Mike: How about short-profile?
nigel: How about short-profiles?
dsinger: Would "profiles" in addition to the original "profile"
be too confusing.
nigel: I think so.
dsinger: I'm back to "procprofs" to allow room for "contprofs"
later.
glenn: If you're doing that, then "processor-profiles" would be
better.
dsinger: The length isn't going to be a problem.
glenn: It's less likely to be confused, and is a semantic
equivalent.
dsinger: We need to call out that the codes are short names not
full ones in the documentation.
RESOLUTION: We will adopt the parameter named processorProfiles
... We will host a registry page for this parameter including
the long name that goes in the TTML2 document and the short
name for the MIME type and a pointer to the
ttp:processorProfiles parameter definition
<inserted> chair: dsinger
WebVTT publication
dsinger: Thierry pointed out that we haven't published a formal
FPWD for WebVTT even though it's implemented in various places.
... To publish a FPWD, so we can call for wide review. We need
a resolution from this WG to do that.
... nigel and I and Silvia have been working on this. We need a
resolution to publish a FPWD. I was hoping to have a final
... draft of this to look at today. We're asking for formal
feedback to come back to the TTWG and bugs to go to the CG
tracker.
[20]http://dev.w3.org/html5/webvtt/webvtt-staged-snapshot.html
[20] http://dev.w3.org/html5/webvtt/webvtt-staged-snapshot.html
nigel: This doc has a SOTD saying comments should go to
public-tt and bugs go to the CG's bugzilla with some
... distinguishing information to show that it originated on
the FPWD.
pal: So the document proposed to be moved to FPWD needs to be
offered for review to the WG. Has that been done?
dsinger: That's what we're doing now. It's the same as the
editor's draft that has been around for a while, with some
... boiler plate changes.
pal: I'd like some time to review this before we agree to move
to FPWD.
dsinger: The FPWD doesn't imply any endorsement, but of course
you can have some time to review it.
pal: I recommend this group gives itself at least a week to
review it.
dsinger: OK, that's fine.
... regrets for next week from me. I'd like to have this
resolved before TPAC so we can socialise it there.
nigel: Okay I'll put that on the agenda for next week and we'll
resolve to publish if there are no objections.
... What about the short codes? The proposals are webvtt and
webvtt1
glenn: I'd suggest going for webvtt1 because there's likely to
be a webvtt2
dsinger: If the team can alias webvtt to the latest version
that's fine too.
RESOLUTION: At the time we resolve to publish as an FPWD we
will use the short name webvtt1
dsinger: My intention for demonstrating wide review to get to
CR is to contact the W3C groups HTML, CSS etc, and at
... least MPEG and so on, and that it will get out in public
lists etc.
nigel: You could use the same list as we used for IMSC1 as a
basis, which was trawled from the Charter and the W3C liaisons
page.
dsinger: I'll draft that email in anticipation of the
resolution.
<Dsinger_> Apologies for running over
<inserted> chair: nigel
AOB
glenn: Quick announcement: I'm officially representing Skynav
in this group now.
nigel: Thanks everyone, for a very productive meeting.
[adjourns meeting]
Summary of Action Items
[End of minutes]
__________________________________________________________
Minutes formatted by David Booth's [21]scribe.perl version
1.138 ([22]CVS log)
$Date: 2014-10-16 15:20:13 $
[21] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
[22] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/
Received on Thursday, 16 October 2014 15:22:05 UTC