{minutes} TTWG Meeting 13/11/2014

Thank you all who attended today's TTWG meeting. Minutes in HTML format are at: http://www.w3.org/2014/11/13-tt-minutes.html


In text format:


   [1]W3C

      [1] http://www.w3.org/


                Timed Text Working Group Teleconference

13 Nov 2014

   See also: [2]IRC log

      [2] http://www.w3.org/2014/11/13-tt-irc


Attendees

   Present
          pal, nigel, atai, tmichel, Frans, Mike, jdsmith

   Regrets
          glenn, courtney

   Chair
          nigel

   Scribe
          nigel

Contents

     * [3]Topics
         1. [4]This meeting
         2. [5]IMSC 1 review comments
         3. [6]Note on TTML versions
         4. [7]Change Proposals
     * [8]Summary of Action Items
     __________________________________________________________

   <trackbot> Date: 13 November 2014

   <scribe> scribeNick: nigel

This meeting

   group: no other business

   nigel: Notes no meeting on 25th December and 1st January

   tmichel: We have agreement to publish the FPWD of WebVTT; I'm
   still waiting on the announcement.
   ... I publish the document in place, and then the web master
   adds the links, which is the publication process, as well
   ... as making the announcement and putting on W3C home page.

IMSC 1 review comments

   nigel: Our plan for today is to go through all the comments and
   if we can move them all to Resolved then send replies.
   ... In order to do that we'll need to agree a response deadline
   for the commenter, which goes into the emails.

   pal: I've had some comments from Andreas and Nigel, which I
   think are editorial only. I propose to edit them in place now.
   ... First one is a typo from nigel - double 'use'.
   ... For a future agenda, we should consider the general move to
   git instead of Mercurial, so when Glenn's present it
   ... would be good to discuss that.

   Frans: +1 to using git

   pal: Another from Nigel: for LC-2977. You're proposing to add
   conformance language and use the term "normal rendering"
   ... I'm concerned with using "normal rendering" which isn't
   defined.
   ... SHALL vs NOT SHALL - I don't think that's needed but could
   be okay.

   nigel: The bigger point is that "no impact on presentation"
   could be misinterpreted as "no presentation" which isn't what
   we mean.

   pal: This was a response to Andreas's point - I'd actually
   prefer to remove the sentence altogether.

   andreas: From a practical point of view the text as written
   could be intepreted as requiring that forcedDisplay must be set
   to true for everything.

   pal: That's only the case if displayForcedMode is true.

   andreas: If you set the external parameter to true and none of
   the content has an applicable forcedDisplay attribute then
   ... nothing is shown.

   pal: That's right - by default displayForcedOnlyMode is false.

   andreas: The practical implication is that authors might always
   set forcedDisplay to true.

   mike: It's important to note the relevant external context
   here, in which a track may be selected and displayed or not
   displayed.
   ... The forcedDisplayMode forces the deselected text content to
   play in specific circumstances.

   nigel: We need to find an alternate form of words that
   addresses the editorial issue here.

   pal: I'm happy to a) remove the last sentence or b) keep as it
   is but not c) use the term "normal rendering".

   nigel: I'm not happy with leaving as is.

   andreas: can we use something like "all other combinations ...
   do not change the computed presentation" or something like
   that?

   pal: Glenn was adamant that this parameter should have no
   impact on other computed values - let's not introduce another
   problem.

   nigel: How about removing the additional sentence and replacing
   "If the value of" in the previous sentence with "If, and only
   if, the value of" ...

   andreas: Yes, that works.

   pal: Okay, I've captured that.

   [9]https://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/34314/WD-ttml

   -imsc1-20140930/2977

      [9] https://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/34314/WD-ttml-imsc1-20140930/2977


   pal: The resolution text does not need to be changed because it
   points to the latest editor's draft.
   ... Next is LC-2973

   [10]https://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/34314/WD-ttm

   l-imsc1-20140930/2973

     [10] https://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/34314/WD-ttml-imsc1-20140930/2973


   andreas: I like the solution in 6.2 but in 6.3 what we want to
   say here is that the namespace defined by W3C can only
   ... be added to by W3C and no other entities. The last sentence
   says that all undefined names in these namespaces are
   ... reserved for future standardisation by the W3C. I'm not
   sure if that's quite the right term.

   pal: I copied exactly what was in TTML1.

   andreas: Okay, if everyone understands the intended meaning
   then I'm fine with that.

   pal: I tried to do exactly what TTML1 already does so at least
   it's the same.
   ... Next one is LC-2982

   [11]https://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/34314/WD-ttm

   l-imsc1-20140930/2982

     [11] https://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/34314/WD-ttml-imsc1-20140930/2982


   andreas: I think we've already worked on this (forced display).
   I was just thinking about the impact on authors for using
   ... the feature. I think it's correct as it says, and I have no
   further proposal for a change.

   pal: The last one with a comment is LC-2978

   [12]https://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/34314/WD-ttm

   l-imsc1-20140930/2978

     [12] https://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/34314/WD-ttml-imsc1-20140930/2978


   pal: I think Andreas suggested that the section 2 Document
   Conventions should be a direct link to the section in TTML1
   ... rather than a general link?

   andreas: Yes

   pal: The challenge is I think the conventions aren't only in
   the TTML1 document conventions section. For example
   ... the XML representation is in TTML1 §2.3, but the way
   styling attributes are specified is in the styling section
   inline.
   ... So I wanted to cast a wider net rather than a narrower one.

   nigel: I can't see anything defining a document convention in
   TTML 1 §8 Styling

   pal: That's right - we're using the same convention as the
   styling attribute tables in TTML1 §8 but it isn't clearly
   ... defined anywhere even in TTML1. I don't think we can link
   to only one place.

   andreas: The main reason for the comment was about the XML
   representation, where the bold attribute format is
   ... defined as 'required'.

   pal: So we can add 'in particular see section 2.3 for the
   specification of the XML representation of elements'?

   andreas: +1

   pal: [edits in place with slight tweaks to the above wording
   for precision]
   ... I think that covers all the comments.

   nigel: In that case I think we can set all the comments to one
   kind of Resolved or another.

   pal: I don't know how to pick the different types of Resolved!

   tmichel: They're resolved within the WG then we need the
   agreement from the commenter.

   [13]http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/Guide2LCtracker/overview.ht

   ml#Resolution

     [13] http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/Guide2LCtracker/overview.html#Resolution


   nigel: I think we have to choose the appropriate
   Resolved-[yes|partial|no] status on a comment by comment basis.

   jdsmith: That makes sense to me.

   tmichel: The three options will show on the final disposition
   document with green/yellow/red colour coding

   pal: When the comments are resolved, how do we notify the
   commenter?

   nigel: If it's okay I will decide on the status for each one,
   and then we can send the replies.
   ... We need a feedback date though.

   pal: I propose by next Thursday so we have the status by the
   next meeting.

   tmichel: My notes do say 'if the comment meets the commenters
   request then we should put resolved-yes' etc.
   ... so before sending the response we have to set this status.
   Then there's another box for the commenter to agree.
   ... So there are two different levels.

   nigel: I'll set the statuses.
   ... When I've done that I'll send thierry an email asking for
   the replies to be reviewed and sent.

   tmichel: That's fine, then I'll track the responses from the
   commenters.

   nigel: And we'll set a reply-by date of Thursday 20th November.

   pal: I've checked in the modification to the tip, incorporating
   all the changes from today.

   action-349?

   <trackbot> action-349 -- Nigel Megitt to Submit imsc 1 to itu-r
   working party 6b by 10th november -- due 2014-11-10 --
   PENDINGREVIEW

   <trackbot>
   [14]http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/tracker/actions/349


     [14] http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/tracker/actions/349


   close action-349

   <trackbot> Closed action-349.

   action-348?

   <trackbot> action-348 -- Pierre-Anthony Lemieux to Thank dvb
   for input re lc-2983 -- due 2014-11-13 -- OPEN

   <trackbot>
   [15]http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/tracker/actions/348


     [15] http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/tracker/actions/348


   pal: I suggest it is more efficient for you to do this Nigel.

   nigel: I suggest we just use the Replies to Comments here with
   Resolution-yes. If you can do action-348 by adding the
   ... thank you message to LC-2983 then I'll just go ahead with
   that.

   pal: Thanks, I'll do that.

Note on TTML versions

   action-344?

   <trackbot> action-344 -- Cyril Concolato to Draft a wg note
   explaining the differences and relationships between the
   various versions of ttml -- due 2014-11-03 -- OPEN

   <trackbot>
   [16]http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/tracker/actions/344


     [16] http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/tracker/actions/344


   [17]https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/ttml/raw-file/5ee90ec0d897/ttml-stat

   us/index.html

     [17] https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/ttml/raw-file/5ee90ec0d897/ttml-status/index.html


   nigel: Cyril has done this and checked it in. The group should
   review this and propose any edits needed.

   close action-344

   <trackbot> Closed action-344.

Change Proposals

   nigel: I've sent a survey email out about CP25 and hope to
   raise it as an agenda item next week.

   <scribe> ACTION: nigel Set the status of the IMSC 1 Review
   comments [recorded in
   [18]http://www.w3.org/2014/11/13-tt-minutes.html#action01]

   <trackbot> Created ACTION-350 - Set the status of the imsc 1
   review comments [on Nigel Megitt - due 2014-11-20].

   nigel: Adjourns meeting. Thanks everyone - our next meeting is
   1 hour, at the usual time next week.

Summary of Action Items

   [NEW] ACTION: nigel Set the status of the IMSC 1 Review
   comments [recorded in
   [19]http://www.w3.org/2014/11/13-tt-minutes.html#action01]

   [End of minutes]
     __________________________________________________________


    Minutes formatted by David Booth's [20]scribe.perl version
    1.140 ([21]CVS log)
    $Date: 2014-11-13 16:08:17 $

     [20] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm

     [21] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/

Received on Thursday, 13 November 2014 16:09:33 UTC