See also: IRC log
<scribe> scribe: nigel
nigel: For today we have a minor
section on IMSC, TTML2, and Charter, and Thierry has also
requested that we discuss TTML and WebVTT mapping, WebVTT
comments
... AOB?
group: no AOB.
group: no updates on any actions this week.
tmichel: From my understanding
last week we have 1 open PR from BBC, and a fair amount of
issues that were
... raised. I thought Nigel wanted to look at those issues and
state which are already incorporated in that PR.
nigel: That's right, but I haven't done it [slaps own wrist]
tmichel: I'm happy to merge the
PR, but please let me know which issues are already
covered.
... I think plh is expecting that document ASAP to submit to
W3M. I think he's like to directly submit the charter
... instead of requesting an extension and going through it
again, if that's doable. From the amount of issues we
... have I think we can reach that goal.
atai: I have a question regarding
the procedure.
... I think first it will be presented to W3M and then reviewed
by the members, where topics can be raised?
tmichel: Yes.
... But if you already have issues - e.g. the HTML and
coordination with HTML, then it's better to do that as soon as
possible.
... The sooner the better.
atai: Yes, of course! I agree.
tmichel: If you could provide any further input before our next Telecon next week that would be excellent, so we can discuss it here first.
nigel: I've now looked through
the issues and have added three issues to the BBC Pull Request
where they are at
... least partially addressed, but I'd encourage especially
Pierre to review since it may not exactly match what he's asked
for.
... On the document license, did we agree?
tmichel: We can state it on a
document by document basis as discussed by email. I want to
remove the wording
... because I've not seen it in other Charters so I'm not sure
it's really needed. I'll let you know if it's needed by
... next Monday. If it is then we'll tweak the language to
allow either licence to be chosen on a document by document
basis.
nigel: Does anyone want to raise any specific issues for discussion?
tmichel: On the timeline link, we should make sure there's something there on the wiki,
nigel: I've already done
that!
... (based on the link in the BBC pull request)
... [goes through issues rapidly]
... I'd like a staff view on #25: https://github.com/w3c/charter-drafts/issues/25
... likewise for #22: https://github.com/w3c/charter-drafts/issues/22
... What about issue #17, tmichel?
tmichel: https://github.com/w3c/charter-drafts/issues/17 I raised this because I thought it was a bit ambiguous.
nigel: How will you resolve this - is it a staff view?
tmichel: Either I remove Wide
review on first publication and replace with what's in the
process, or remove the whole bit.
... I'll discuss with plh on Monday. It's more something
internal to discuss.
... I also wanted to add ARIB to external groups.
nigel: Then you should +1
Pierre's issue #26 https://github.com/w3c/charter-drafts/issues/26
... I see that issue #16 has a number of things in.
tmichel: I see that's redundant. What's Apex?
pal: It's an organisation that sets standards for airlines who has in the past expressed an interest in IMSC 1 and TTML so I thought we should keep them up to date.
nigel: What will we do differently during the charter period between external groups that are listed vs those that are not?
tmichel: It's not a big difference but there's more pressure to seek wide review from listed groups.
pal: We discussed this for IMSC 1 - if a group is listed but does not respond then that does not stop us from proceeding.
tmichel: That's true.
glenn: I'd rather not list it unless we've got information that we're likely to get feedback from it.
tmichel: Would you disagree for both ARIB and APEX, or just APEX?
glenn: ARIB is a national
standards body so a completely different sort of thing. We have
a long tradition working
... with ARIB so I'm just commenting on APEX not ARIB here.
tmichel: I agree with you there.
glenn: FYI at the meeting from
Sapporo there was an ARIB participant. If someone shows up from
APEX in the
... future then sure, but I think it's premature now.
tmichel: Ok so what we could do is add them somewhere like in our implementation list.
pal: Don't get me wrong, it was
only a suggestion. Please don't include them if you'd rather
not.
... We should put in the charter how we expect to interact with
those external organisations. It would be good to
... reaffirm that responses from those organisations are not
mandatory for us to proceed.
nigel: I've added a note to
... say "Group agreed to add in ARIB but not to add in APEX to
the TTWG Charter."
nigel: Just to note that Pierre,
Philippe, Thierry and I met the Director on Tuesday and he
approved transition to PR which we expect to be published next
week.
... So that's a great step!
... We did agree to add a dated note to the implementation
report at some stage saying that we're no longer working on it,
and point to a new page listing current known
implementations.
tmichel: I'm happy to take a snapshot of the current IR document, and list in a new page the tests and implementations we know of, in a wiki page.
nigel: +1 to the wiki page idea.
tmichel: I'll look at doing that
in a couple of weeks or so.
... We did discuss a press release and agreed not to have a
formal press release for example with companies giving
testimonials (which we don't usually do) but to have some kind
of blog entry
... about the Rec release. We can talk about that later.
pal: I had a different
recollection - we were going to let the W3C comms team make a
determination especially in
... the light of the recent Emmy. I'm happy to compose an email
to the comms team, but I would allow them to make
... the decision.
tmichel: I doubt that they will
have a big press release but they could add some information
about the Emmy on the home page.
... I understood that there will also be a blog.
pal: I think you or I or Nigel
should inform the Comm team. It's an opportunity to build
momentum and I would not
... like us to miss that.
tmichel: I'm fine with that - can
you start drafting something and we can discuss it in the group
and then check
... with the comm team if they're happy to issue it? We have to
start early, because things are going to go
... quickly now - in a month or so we should exit the PR review
and then move to Rec.
pal: I'll compose that email and send to tmichel and nigel for review.
tmichel: Great.
nigel: Thanks
nigel: Just to note we have a new
issue on TTML1, and a couple on TTML2 if you want to check the
github repo.
... Also tmichel asked about a new publication.
glenn: I think we should get a new WD out - how about targeting e.g. March 15?
tmichel: Excellent, thank you Glenn.
nigel: +1
glenn: I'll spend some time on
some edits. I have some minor items to report.
... In recent implementation work on TTV etc I've now
implemented the full condition expression language and
... have it operating, except not the media query part yet. We
have syntax parsing and a function evaluation.
... In particular in TTPE we have it working for the forced use
case, and it's publicly available if people want
... to review the code and understand it.
<glenn> [1] https://github.com/skynav/ttt/blob/master/ttt-ttv/src/main/java/com/skynav/ttv/util/Condition.java [2] https://github.com/skynav/ttt/blob/master/ttt-ttv/src/test/java/com/skynav/ttv/util/ConditionTestCases.java
glenn: Just to comment on the new
issue about exposing external parameters, that's an interesting
idea. I think
... we need to look at that and for example what CSS might be
doing to support external parameter access. There
... may be security issues involved in doing that, to allow
content from the local environment to be injected into
... the presentation content.
nigel: Ooh yes.
glenn: I could also see that you
could use a condition that checks to see if a particular
feature is supported. I want
... to see use cases for this. The question I would raise is
that if you're processing it locally then why don't you
... use a preprocessor that uses macro substitution to replace
values. Obviously that makes it less portable.
nigel: We could define the macros.
glenn: Most preprocessing like
that uses server side replacement, but if it's genuinely client
side only then that
... might be an issue. For example we have a user language
parameter in condition that allows you to conditionalise
... content and style based on the local user language. That's
a way to allow parameters to be used without
... exposing them.
nigel: Yes, however many
accessibility requirements specify client side customisation of
e.g. font family, size, color etc.
... and there's no way described right now to achieve that.
glenn: Traditionally solutions have included e.g. a CSS stylesheet that overrides local settings, or a presentation processor override.
nigel: That's the sort of thing we need to discuss.
pal: It's not straightforward but I'd like to participate in that discussion.
atai: I see Nigel's point.
group: Agreed to set aside some time to go deeper into this complex topic later.
nigel: tmichel asked about when we publish a FPWD, but it's a Note isn't it, so not subject to a FPWD?
tmichel: There are two ways: we
could issue a WD and then later a Note that we revise any time,
or just go straight
... to Note, but at some point I'd like to publish it.
nigel: Andreas, what do we need to do in your view before publishing it?
atai: It's already publicly
available. There hasn't been much feedback. The major problem
with the mapping document
... is as we discussed before, that WebVTT is still changing.
So I think first we need more feedback, with tests of
... existing implementations, and then conclude if we should
publish it as a Note. I don't see it at the moment.
... I'm not sure also when the best point will be because that
also largely depends on the WebVTT spec.
... At the moment it is really problematic to say which
features we can depend on in WebVTT
tmichel: If you want to give it
more visibility don't you think publishing in /TR would give it
more visibility?
... The first publication of a Note does not have to be final.
I understand that there's a big dependency with WebVTT
... but does that mean we will not have a first Note before
WebVTT is in CR?
atai: Yes, let's see when this
happens or when we can say that it's stable. As I said I think
there's also the topic of
... testing, as well as feedback and the evolution of WebVTT.
If the third takes too long then of course we can
... go for feedback outside the group. At the moment I don't
see it right now. Maybe in Q2 this year.
... Also, if we pubish it on the /TR page there's a
disadvantage as well as an advantage that it seems for
people
... not reading the document that there is an easy translation
but I don't think that's really the case at the moment
... so I would be very careful about early publication.
nigel: I think there are issues
open as well which we haven't been able to resolve.
... We're out of time so I'll adjourn. Meet same time next
week. Please do look at the Charter before then. Thanks all.
[adjourns meeting]