01:02:58 RRSAgent has joined #tt 01:02:58 logging to http://www.w3.org/2013/11/11-tt-irc 01:03:00 RRSAgent, make logs public 01:03:00 Zakim has joined #tt 01:03:02 Zakim, this will be TTML 01:03:02 ok, trackbot, I see Vide_TTML()8:00PM already started 01:03:03 Meeting: Timed Text Working Group Teleconference 01:03:03 Date: 11 November 2013 01:03:12 zakim, please call taishan 01:03:12 ok, nigel; the call is being made 01:03:13 +Taishan 01:03:41 pal has joined #tt 01:04:07 topic: TTML profiles 01:04:32 https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/ttml/raw-file/default/ttml2/design/TPAC2013-TTMLProfiles.pdf 01:05:02 chair: glenn 01:05:06 scribeNick: nigel 01:06:26 razybon has joined #tt 01:06:43 glenn: describes TTML1 Profiles 01:07:59 ... using slides from link above 01:09:52 tmichel has joined #tt 01:10:12 glenn: Nobody has actually used the "used" value to my knowledge. 01:10:49 ... Instead people just used "required" 01:11:17 ... to mean both supported and enabled. 01:13:38 pal: do we know in practice how many documents include profile definitions inline? 01:13:44 glenn: no we don't know. 01:14:01 pal: sdp-us, cff-tt and ebu-tt don't. 01:15:54 nigel: can Profiles be combined when defined internally, externally or any combination? 01:15:59 glenn: any combination 01:19:30 nigel: Are external references required to be resolved? 01:19:47 glenn: they 'should' be resolvable but it's not a mandatory requirement 01:22:14 On the 'what's missing' slide 01:23:01 cyril has joined #tt 01:26:03 Profile Designator Proposal 01:27:30 dsinger has joined #tt 01:27:37 Checking which issue or action is related to this problem 01:28:53 pal: creating an action for this 01:31:19 razybon has left #tt 01:32:05 razybon has joined #tt 01:32:54 plh has joined #tt 01:33:01 glenn: this designator is just a label, doesn't imply anything about schemas etc 01:33:10 hello plh 01:34:29 pal: this binds the profile with this URI, unambiguously 01:36:14 nigel: it's clear for linking profiles with labels but it's another different problem to define which profiles any particular document conforms to. 01:36:39 glenn: all this designator attribute does is allows the profile definition document to create a machine-readable label. 01:38:26 issue-297 01:38:26 issue-297 -- Include Profile Designator in Profile Definition Document -- raised 01:38:26 http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/tracker/issues/297 01:41:18 glenn: proposes that we complete these issues if there are no objections by December 1st 01:41:54 dsinger has joined #tt 01:42:20 PROPOSED RESOLUTION: to adopt @designator attribute on ttp:profile as described in presentation, to be finalized by DEC5 01:43:27 RRSAgent, pointer 01:43:27 See http://www.w3.org/2013/11/11-tt-irc#T01-43-27 01:44:55 issue-266 01:44:55 issue-266 -- add ability for instance documents to declare what profile(s) it conforms to -- open 01:44:55 http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/tracker/issues/266 01:48:07 On slide Content Profile Proposal (2) tt:root -> tt:tt 01:48:14 s/tt:root/tt:tt/ in the presentation 01:50:10 01:59:10 glenn: scope of ttp:validation is global for the whole document, and all referenced profiles. 01:59:52 pal: can you type an example of what it would look like to specify that a document conforms to multiple content profiles simultaneously? 02:01:22 nigel: have added reference to this proposal on issue-266 02:02:07 02:02:08 02:02:08 02:02:09 02:02:11 02:02:13 02:02:54 pal: that satisfies the requirement for specifying multiple conformant document content profiles. 02:03:07 glenn: there's another way too, a variant on it. 02:03:17 02:03:17 02:03:17 02:03:19 02:03:21 02:03:23 02:03:25 02:03:27 02:03:51 TatsuyaIgarashi has joined #tt 02:03:58 glenn: this allows nested definitions of a content profile. 02:04:26 pal: Based on the use cases I've heard of this goes well beyond the requirement. 02:04:44 ... Can we document the reason behind the extra complexity? 02:05:14 02:05:35 glenn: this is the current mechanism. It can only take one URI not a list. 02:05:42 02:06:00 ... If we added a content profile that does something similar then we couldn't have a list. 02:06:22 ... By using the more advanced mechanism this could reference multiple content profiles. 02:06:45 pal: have you considered extending the current mechanism to be a list, which would be backward compatibility 02:07:42 Mark_Vickers has joined #tt 02:07:46 glenn: it sounds like a reasonable extension. 02:09:15 ... One argument is that it facilitates adding in the profile features to the document. 02:10:56 glenn: we often end up with multiple forms as shorthands, and this does have associated cost 02:11:18 pal: what about the idea of 'if you use content profile or profile attribute' you can't use the other. 02:11:58 glenn: we already have that in TTML1 in 5.2 02:12:29 group reviews current specification 02:12:56 glenn: it is currently well defined. The ttv verifier tool will warn if both are present, or neither. 02:12:58 TatsuyaIgarashi has joined #tt 02:13:24 glenn: I view the attribute as a shorthand for the element. 02:14:33 glenn: 2 proposals. First is to allow profiles and profile attributes to allow multiple designator. 02:15:00 ... Second is to ensure that it's possible for a content profile definition to proscribe use of the profile element while requiring use of the profile attribute. 02:16:27 nigel: there's another issue in that people define profiles by behaviour within text in a specification document not just as ttml profile designators 02:16:28 pal: also interested in that. 02:17:02 glenn: are there any immediate objections? 02:17:28 nigel: this does appear to meet the needs of issue-266 02:17:52 glenn: this goes beyond as it adds validation semantics 02:19:45 nigel: we should be careful to avoid confusion in readers between optional/required feature designators and the validation action 02:19:58 action: glenn to consider also defining @validation on ttp:profile, in addition to (override) tt:tt 02:19:58 Created ACTION-232 - Consider also defining @validation on ttp:profile, in addition to (override) tt:tt [on Glenn Adams - due 2013-11-18]. 02:19:59 nigel: also we need to consider the validation scope - all profiles or per profile? 02:20:51 glenn: may need a validation 'none' on per profile validation to override 02:21:14 pal: what is the use case for requiring the processor to abort or not upon failing validation of a document? 02:21:37 glenn: we have two categories: transformation and presentation. Transformation processing is more likely to occur in a pipeline. 02:22:07 ... a validation node may be required, to cause TTML to be removed from the pipeline on failure. 02:22:50 ... Let's say a document is edited, e.g. features are added or subtracted, perhaps invalidating it. If I'm an author and am paranoid about ensuring profile compliance I may want to specify validation abort 02:23:44 nigel: from a bbc perspective this is the sort of thing we'd like to do. 02:23:57 glenn: from a verifier tool it's very useful for the content to specify behaviour. 02:28:04 pal: the delta between the proposal in the powerpoint as Content Profile Proposal (1) (2) and (3) is: 02:28:57 PROPOSED RESOLUTION: to adopt Content Profile Proposal (1-3) plus: (1) extend ttp:{profile,contentProfile} to take list of designators; (2) allow use of @verification* on ttp:profile; pending decision by DEC5 02:29:08 no objections 02:30:15 group breaks for coffee 02:32:59 - +1.617.766.aaaa 02:33:15 plh3 has joined #tt 03:03:15 -Taishan 03:03:17 Vide_TTML()8:00PM has ended 03:03:17 Attendees were +1.617.766.aaaa, Taishan 03:05:52 pal has joined #tt 03:08:34 Plan to recommence at 11:15 china time, i.e. 7 minutes... 03:19:48 Zakim has left #tt 03:23:05 invite zakim 03:23:17 trackbot, this is ttml 03:23:17 Sorry, nigel, I don't understand 'trackbot, this is ttml'. Please refer to for help. 03:23:23 rrsagent, this is ttml 03:23:23 I'm logging. I don't understand 'this is ttml', nigel. Try /msg RRSAgent help 03:23:42 zakim, this is ttml 03:23:58 we've hung up the phone, will redial soon 03:24:05 trackbot, start meeting 03:24:07 RRSAgent, make logs public 03:24:07 Zakim has joined #tt 03:24:09 Zakim, this will be TTML 03:24:09 ok, trackbot; I see Vide_TTML()8:00PM scheduled to start 144 minutes ago 03:24:10 Meeting: Timed Text Working Group Teleconference 03:24:10 Date: 11 November 2013 03:24:21 zakim, please call taishen 03:24:21 I am sorry, nigel; I do not know a number for taishen 03:24:36 zakim, please call taishan 03:24:36 ok, nigel; the call is being made 03:24:37 Vide_TTML()8:00PM has now started 03:24:38 +Taishan 03:27:27 topic: profiles (continued) 03:27:52 issue-206 03:27:52 issue-206 -- Add ttp:profileCombination parameter -- open 03:27:52 http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/tracker/issues/206 03:28:50 dsinger has joined #tt 03:29:23 http://www.w3.org/TR/ttml1/#parameter-vocabulary-profile 03:38:34 https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/ttml/raw-file/default/ttml2/spec/ttml2.html 03:42:22 pal: what is the use case for profile combination? 03:42:43 nigel: not sure of any specific use case, but useful in the TTML -> IMSC -> xyz scenario 03:46:04 glenn: this allows collisions between profiles to be resolved more clearly 03:46:55 glenn: as an implementor this allows parameterisation of the behaviour better 03:47:58 glenn: it's possible that we may introduce this now and find that nobody uses it so we then remove it. 03:48:26 plh has joined #tt 03:48:32 pal: argument against adding it now is the profile section of the specification is already confusing for DECE and EBU. 03:48:47 ... By adding features we may make it more complex and introduce errors. 03:49:30 glenn: much of the confusion re profiles comes from preconceptions. 03:49:37 silvia1 has joined #tt 03:50:28 nigel: suggests we have the possibility of restructuring the documentation to add clarity 03:50:54 glenn: tech specs are not user guides. The spec should say the minimum that makes it semantically clear. 03:51:23 pal: agrees with that perspective 03:51:42 glenn: in favour of editorial changes to help readers. The driving factor is whether to use hidden parameters or make them explicit. 03:52:06 ... the combination methods right now are hidden parameters encoded in prose. 03:52:28 ... When we go through the TTML2 spec process, if there are no implementations we may end up labelling features as at risk and then removing them. 03:53:00 ... It's easier to take things out than put things in. Like to err on the side of putting in, if logically sound. 03:53:35 mark: customer feedback from target of the spec is 'confused' so would be cautious about saying 'wrong assumptions' but to address this in a customer-oriented way. 03:54:16 pal: open to see the output of the editing, which may be clearer after refactoring than TTML1. Would hate it to get worse. 03:55:02 mijordan has joined #tt 03:56:09 glenn: agree with the principle of not adding complexity for its own sake 03:56:55 +[Adobe] 03:57:25 Mark_Vickers has joined #tt 03:58:17 glenn: should we draft a proposal as per previously discussed process? 03:58:19 nigel: yes 03:58:37 PROPOSED RESOLUTION: to adopt Content Profile combination proposals, subject to the DEC5 review period 03:59:34 glenn: Feature relation proposal 04:01:08 glenn: example is #markerMode, #markerMode-continuous, #markerMode-discontinuous 04:01:35 ... could use the @restricts attribute to relate the smaller features to the larger features. 04:03:06 ... @extends allows extension features to extend existing ones. 04:03:29 ... It would be useful to think about this when reviewing e.g. IMSC to identify candidate features. 04:03:34 pal: have done this and have not found any. 04:04:20 pal: profiles can not define new features, only extensions. Can profiles express a restriction on TTML? 04:09:02 glenn: if a profile defines an extension and says it restricts an existing feature it can be expressed. Is that the right mechanism? 04:09:14 pal: so when you capture that you'd put it both in the spec and the profile definition? 04:09:17 glenn: yes. 04:09:32 pal: where would you specify it in the profile specification (the content profile)? 04:10:00 glenn: to reuse the feature definitions in the context of content profiles is to add text describing their meaning in a content profile. 04:10:04 pal: assume we do that. 04:10:48 glenn: if you're in a content profile definition document, this allows enumeration of features that must/may/may not be present in the document. 04:10:58 pal: so you get to the feature that's restricted - how do you declare that? 04:11:19 #extent-region 04:11:20 glenn: you'd need to define a feature that is the complement of the portion that is the restriction and then say use of the complement is prohibited. 04:12:53 pal: intention is to say that the extent is restricted, but a processor that supports unrestricted extent can still go ahead, even if it doesn't know about the extension feature designation 04:13:16 pal: idea is to express still within the feature element. 04:13:51 glenn: we're talking about this in the context of a content profile. 04:13:58 #extent-region 04:14:09 ... so required means it must be present. What you're really trying to say is that something is permitted. 04:14:13 #extent-region 04:14:30 glenn: this is therefore a no-op for any verifier. 04:14:58 glenn: what you're trying to do is to prohibit a document from expressing a value that goes out of the document. 04:16:19 glenn: from the validation perspective optional doesn't help. Suggest we take this offline and see if we can resolve it. 04:16:57 pal: can't see the value of this for IMSC 04:20:12 nigel: @restricts and @extends have almost opposite meanings dependent on whether they're processor or content profile features 04:20:24 ... can we come up with different labels that don't have the same connotations? 04:20:30 glenn: we can try to come up with better terms. 04:20:45 pal: was just trying to understand the intent. 04:21:09 glenn: raises the issue of what do content profiles mean? Is it just for validation tools, or something that will be used. 04:21:28 ... when you get to the presentation processor its too late in most cases to do anything about it. 04:23:21 glenn: happy to think further about this last proposal and table it subject to further discussion. 04:24:48 sense of the room: table feature relation proposal subject to further offline discussion 04:27:35 will break for lunch now, return at 1:30 04:28:17 -Taishan 04:28:33 rrsagent, generate minutes 04:28:33 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2013/11/11-tt-minutes.html nigel 04:28:39 -[Adobe] 04:28:40 Vide_TTML()8:00PM has ended 04:28:40 Attendees were Taishan, [Adobe] 05:18:22 dsinger has joined #tt 05:32:39 pal has joined #tt 05:35:31 nigel has joined #tt 05:35:38 trackbot, start meeting 05:35:40 RRSAgent, make logs public 05:35:42 Zakim, this will be TTML 05:35:42 I do not see a conference matching that name scheduled within the next hour, trackbot 05:35:43 Meeting: Timed Text Working Group Teleconference 05:35:43 Date: 11 November 2013 05:35:48 zakim, this is ttml 05:35:48 sorry, nigel, I do not see a conference named 'ttml' in progress or scheduled at this time 05:37:14 zakim, list conferences 05:37:14 I see IA_WebApps()7:00PM, Team_(webbrobg)04:12Z, Team_(css)04:31Z active 05:37:16 also scheduled at this time is Team_(xquery)03:03Z 05:37:19 silvia has joined #tt 05:39:29 plh has joined #tt 05:40:22 @plh zakim seems to have no records of ttml meeting 05:40:55 razybon has joined #tt 05:41:07 zakim, this will be Vide_TTML 05:41:07 I do not see a conference matching that name scheduled within the next hour, glenn 05:41:31 zakim, this is 8865 05:41:31 sorry, glenn, I do not see a conference named '8865' in progress or scheduled at this time 05:42:22 zakim, this is TTML 05:42:22 sorry, plh, I do not see a conference named 'TTML' in progress or scheduled at this time 05:42:31 zakim, I don't like you 05:42:31 I don't understand 'I don't like you', plh 05:44:38 tmichel has joined #tt 05:45:10 we could create an ad-hoc call instead 05:45:16 that would do the trick for now 05:45:23 ok? 05:45:31 yes 05:45:49 zakim, room for 4 for 240 minutes? 05:45:51 ok, plh; conference Team_(tt)05:45Z scheduled with code 26634 (CONF4) for 240 minutes until 0945Z 05:46:00 zakim, call taishan 05:46:00 ok, plh; the call is being made 05:46:00 Team_(tt)05:45Z has now started 05:46:03 +Taishan 05:46:28 if I was correct, the room should be connected now 05:46:33 yes it is 05:46:39 cyril has joined #tt 05:46:41 zakim, passcode? 05:46:41 the conference code is 26634 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 sip:zakim@voip.w3.org), plh 05:46:59 the others should use this password 05:47:01 tm has joined #tt 05:48:27 chair: nigel 05:49:15 scribeNick: pal 05:51:20 agenda: ISSUE-285 05:51:55 israelh_ has joined #TT 06:07:52 nigel: mulitrowAlign is intended to allow the author to specify alignement relative to the longest lign of a without a priori knowledge of line length 06:08:02 nigel: would CSS flex box work 06:08:33 glenn: suggest creating an example based on CSS 06:08:59 tmichel__ has joined #tt 06:09:28 glenn: unless there is a mapping to CSS, a feature will likely be ignored by OWP 06:11:58 glenn: mapping to svg is a potential, but higher cost 06:16:33 ACTION: glenn to reach out to CSS WG to understand potential mappinp of multiRowAlign to CSS 06:16:33 Created ACTION-233 - Reach out to css wg to understand potential mappinp of multirowalign to css [on Glenn Adams - due 2013-11-18]. 06:17:01 ISSUE-286 06:17:01 ISSUE-286 -- Extend the background area behind rendered text to improve readability -- open 06:17:01 http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/tracker/issues/286 06:19:04 silvia1 has joined #tt 06:20:06 nigel: adding padding at end of row improves legibility 06:20:34 glenn: CSS folks mentioned box-decoration-break as a possibiliy 06:24:23 ACTIOM: glenn to explore box-decoration-break in response to ISSUE-286 06:24:30 ACTION: glenn to explore box-decoration-break in response to ISSUE-286 06:24:30 Created ACTION-234 - Explore box-decoration-break in response to issue-286 [on Glenn Adams - due 2013-11-18]. 06:24:45 glenn: and white space as an alternative 06:24:56 nigel: undesirable since it mixes semantics and presentation 06:25:47 ISSUE-286: CSS folks mentioned box-decoration-break as a possibiliy 06:25:47 Notes added to ISSUE-286 Extend the background area behind rendered text to improve readability. 06:28:52 ISSUE-294 06:28:52 ISSUE-294 -- Style attribute to prevent overflow by shrinking text to fit on a line -- raised 06:28:52 http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/tracker/issues/294 06:31:31 nigel: "shrink-text-to-fit" is optimal option to ensure that all text shows up 06:32:00 nigel: "shrink-text-to-fit" is dormant issue in CSS 06:33:06 pal: all 3 options: dl fonts, "shrink-text-to-fit" and reference fonts are not mutually exclusive 06:35:08 plh has joined #tt 06:36:34 dsinger has joined #tt 06:41:00 nigel: should TTML 2 support downloadable fonts 06:42:58 glenn: font height > font width usually so worse case line width can be estimated 06:44:29 glenn: it would be good to explore downloadable fonts 06:45:05 glenn: CSS alows a URL to be associated with combination of font family and style 06:45:33 glenn: TTML 1 did not allow document to reference external resources 06:46:38 @font-face { font-family: FooBar; src: url('http://fonts.org/foobar.woff'); } 06:47:02 foo bar baz 06:48:43 PROPOSAL: add support for downloadable fonts in TTML 2 06:51:56 issue-273 06:51:56 issue-273 -- Map fontFamily to external font file resources -- open 06:51:56 http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/tracker/issues/273 06:52:33 ISSUE-273: TPAC 2013 PROPOSAL: add support for downloadable fonts in TTML 2 06:52:33 Notes added to ISSUE-273 Map fontFamily to external font file resources. 06:56:12 pal: not implementations will support downloadable fonts 06:56:49 pal: so downloadable fonts is not magic bullet therefore 07:09:58 nigel: add margins and reference fonts to delivery specs 07:10:42 nigel: specify end-of-line allowance and reference fonts to delivery specs 07:10:46 nigel: (not in TTML2 - adding safety allowances is a specification issue for clients commissioning subtitle documents) 07:11:26 pal: different implementations will render the same font file differently 07:11:36 pal: authors should use 07:19:14 ISSUE-283: TPAC 2013 PROPOSAL: add informative text (e.g. to Section 9.4) on controlling line breaks (see also issue-273 on downloadable fonts) 07:19:15 Notes added to ISSUE-283 Deterministic text wrapping and presentation. 07:21:18 Breaking for 30 mins 07:25:49 dsinger has joined #tt 07:46:04 -Taishan 07:46:05 Team_(tt)05:45Z has ended 07:46:05 Attendees were Taishan 07:49:39 zakim, what conference is this? 07:49:39 this will be Team_(tt)05:45Z conference code 26634, nigel 07:49:40 this was Team_(tt)05:45Z 07:58:50 pal has joined #tt 08:00:33 ISSUE-288 08:00:33 ISSUE-288 -- Rules for splitting and accumulating documents -- open 08:00:33 http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/tracker/issues/288 08:05:21 Mark_Vickers has joined #tt 08:44:54 nigel: presented EBU input document. 08:45:11 ACTION: nigel to post EBU input document re: ISSUE-288 08:45:11 Created ACTION-235 - Post ebu input document re: issue-288 [on Nigel Megitt - due 2013-11-18]. 08:49:23 plh has joined #tt 08:51:14 s/issue-288/issue-270 08:52:28 nigel: splitting and accumulating document should probably be in a separate document 08:52:36 s/nigel/glenn 08:54:41 s/issue-270/issue-288 08:55:09 ISSUE-270 08:55:09 ISSUE-270 -- Appendix N assumption that root temporal extent corresponds with the beginning of a related media object -- open 08:55:09 http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/tracker/issues/270 09:05:52 ACTION: glenn to review consistent use of "Root Temporal Extent" in both TTML 2 and TTML 1 SE 09:05:52 Created ACTION-236 - Review consistent use of "root temporal extent" in both ttml 2 and ttml 1 se [on Glenn Adams - due 2013-11-18]. 09:06:13 ACTION-236: See ISSUE-270 09:06:13 Notes added to ACTION-236 Review consistent use of "root temporal extent" in both ttml 2 and ttml 1 se. 09:07:21 chair: pal 09:07:26 scribeNick: nigel 09:07:39 topic: IMSC 09:07:47 issue-296 09:07:47 issue-296 -- Remove xml:lang placement restrictions from IMSC -- raised 09:07:47 http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/tracker/issues/296 09:07:52 silvia has joined #tt 09:08:50 plh, is richard ishida likely to be able to attend? 09:09:15 I thought we said Friday 09:09:20 issue-296: pal proposes removing the xml:lang constraint 09:09:21 Notes added to issue-296 Remove xml:lang placement restrictions from IMSC. 09:09:43 plh, I didn't think we had. If he were around soon that'd be handy as we're discussing IMSC 09:09:43 at what time would you ike Richard to be in the room? 09:09:50 ok, let me ask him 09:10:25 I can't locate him at the moment :( 09:10:45 glenn: opentext defines different rendering rules dependent on language, script and feature. 09:11:00 ... language is obtained from xml:lang 09:11:25 s/opentext/opentype 09:12:23 glenn: many fonts have different rendering rules dependent on language, e.g. arabic is used to express pashto, arabic and other languages. 09:13:07 action: pal to review with CFF folk 09:13:07 Created ACTION-237 - Review with cff folk [on Pierre-Anthony Lemieux - due 2013-11-18]. 09:14:18 issue-296: pal removes proposal to restrict xml:lang in IMSC though may re-instate it depending on CFF response 09:14:18 Notes added to issue-296 Remove xml:lang placement restrictions from IMSC. 09:14:29 glenn: line breaking algorithms also depend on xml:lang 09:14:32 issue-295 09:14:32 issue-295 -- Remove code point restrictions from IMSC -- raised 09:14:32 http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/tracker/issues/295 09:14:52 pal: looks like 3 separate issues. 09:15:35 ... 1) Inference that IMSC limits character sets in implementations 09:18:04 pal: This is a document suggestion not an implementation restriction 09:18:20 glenn: this is defined in Unicode and is not in scope of TTML 09:18:40 dsinger has joined #tt 09:25:17 tmichel has joined #tt 09:30:54 glenn: some languages require not just specific fonts but also rendering rules that are not necessarily embedded in an Opentype font, e.g. Indic. 09:33:34 glenn: W3C i18n may have a view here. 09:34:47 tm has joined #tt 09:36:08 http://www.w3.org/TR/its20/ 09:39:04 glenn: internationalisation work has been considered in separate forums both within W3C and Unicode. 09:39:19 pal: this application is specific to subtitles and captions and may therefore be slightly different. 09:41:10 issue-295: action on glenn and pierre to consult richard ishida - is there a baseline to reference, or an external source? 09:41:10 Notes added to issue-295 Remove code point restrictions from IMSC. 09:41:28 action: pal to follow up on issue-295 09:41:28 Created ACTION-238 - Follow up on issue-295 [on Pierre-Anthony Lemieux - due 2013-11-18]. 09:41:36 action-238 09:41:36 action-238 -- Pierre-Anthony Lemieux to Follow up on issue-295 -- due 2013-11-18 -- OPEN 09:41:36 http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/tracker/actions/238 09:41:44 issue-238 09:41:44 issue-238 -- smpte:backgroundImage -- open 09:41:44 http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/tracker/issues/238 09:44:24 nigel: this is a significant divergence from the spatially scalable nature of TTML independent of rendering plane 09:49:41 glenn: if we implement this we'll have to add specific profile feature designators relating to particular image types e.g. JPEG etc. 09:50:10 glenn: and we'll need to add wording relating to usage, similar to UAX14 line breaking wording - i.e. if needed do it like this. 09:50:26 glenn: we should use a CSS-like syntax. 09:50:37 silvia has joined #tt 09:51:34 issue-238: proposal is to add functionality equivalent to smpte backgroundImage and define profile feature designators for baseline feature and image format types. Also describe usage expectations. 09:51:34 Notes added to issue-238 smpte:backgroundImage. 09:54:10 issue-179 09:54:10 issue-179 -- Interpreting the pixel measure -- open 09:54:10 http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/tracker/issues/179 09:57:32 silvia has joined #tt 09:57:37 nigel: it's problematic to relate pixels to related media objects as there may be none or multiple with different resolutions. 09:57:54 glenn: there's an even bigger problem in that the existing definition of pixels doesn't relate to media objects at all. 09:59:26 ... it's defined via TTML 1 8.3.9 as per XSL 1.1 5.9.13 which uses the same language as CSS 10:04:31 glenn: there's been some work in CSS on units and measures 10:05:36 http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css-values/#absolute-lengths 10:09:17 Zakim has left #tt 10:11:04 glenn: we could state that pixels define a logical coordinate space with a mapping into device coordinates 10:11:14 ... we could define a mechanism for defining that transformation 10:12:14 ... In SVG there's a viewbox attribute that defines the coordinates 10:12:53 nigel: MPEG states that the track header box in BMFF should have the same resolution as the root extent 10:13:14 glenn: wants time to craft a proposed response. Thinking about using the SVG model of logical coordinate space. 10:13:55 ... When we define an extent on the root now that effectively defines a viewbox already so the change may be simple. 10:14:13 ... There's extra on SVG in terms of mapping to aspect ratio etc 10:15:36 glenn: we can say if you use pixels and define extent then it means X and if you use pixels without defining extent then it means Y. 10:15:43 ... and make a strong recommendation. 10:16:57 rrsagent, publish minutes 10:16:57 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2013/11/11-tt-minutes.html nigel 10:17:46 glenn has joined #tt 10:22:18 silvia1 has joined #tt 10:31:37 glenn has joined #tt