13:59:48 RRSAgent has joined #tt 13:59:48 logging to http://www.w3.org/2016/04/14-tt-irc 13:59:50 RRSAgent, make logs public 13:59:50 Zakim has joined #tt 13:59:52 Zakim, this will be TTML 13:59:52 ok, trackbot 13:59:53 Meeting: Timed Text Working Group Teleconference 13:59:53 Date: 14 April 2016 14:00:43 Present: Nigel 14:00:48 Chair: Nigel 14:00:50 scribe: Nigel 14:01:38 Regrets: Glenn, Frans 14:07:00 pal has joined #tt 14:07:05 Present+ Andreas 14:07:37 Present+ Pierre 14:09:56 atai has joined #tt 14:11:02 Topic: This Meeting 14:11:18 nigel: We aren't quorate to discuss much today but there are a few topics we can cover for the record. 14:11:28 ... AOB? 14:11:45 plh has joined #tt 14:11:50 atai: I'd like to look at the status of the profile registry. 14:11:55 nigel: Okay 14:12:18 Present+ plh 14:13:08 Topic: Action Items 14:13:13 action-460? 14:13:13 action-460 -- Nigel Megitt to Creat an issue to draft a ttml2 section on customisation. -- due 2016-04-14 -- PENDINGREVIEW 14:13:13 http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/tracker/actions/460 14:13:39 nigel: I created https://github.com/w3c/ttml2/issues/156 14:13:49 close action-460 14:13:49 Closed action-460. 14:14:11 action-457 14:14:11 action-457 -- Pierre-Anthony Lemieux to Alert Unicode upon publication of IMSC1 -- due 2016-04-15 -- OPEN 14:14:11 http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/tracker/actions/457 14:14:23 pal: Can we move the date of this to after the 21st? 14:14:25 nigel: will do. 14:14:43 ... done - made it the 22nd. 14:15:01 action-456? 14:15:01 action-456 -- Pierre-Anthony Lemieux to Collect use cases and testimonials for potential IMSC1 press release -- due 2016-04-07 -- OPEN 14:15:01 http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/tracker/actions/456 14:15:21 pal: I've done this - it's in Karen's hands. I have interest from a number of W3C members and other non-member implementors. 14:15:27 close action-456 14:15:27 Closed action-456. 14:15:34 nigel: Thanks for collecting those! 14:16:30 Topic: Charter 14:16:49 plh: I've got all the internal green lines - it's now in the hands of the comm team. The 14:17:18 ... AC review should be under way tomorrow, unless there are questions on the draft. 14:17:28 ... I made a few changes to the draft: 14:17:57 https://github.com/w3c/charter-drafts/pull/50 14:18:52 https://github.com/w3c/charter-drafts/pull/50/commits/15ced1d6e3a42e03fa284a8a306c228b4c3032d2 14:19:13 and should detail any known security or privacy implications for implementers, Web authors, and end users 14:19:30 plh: The main change is the one regarding security requirements. They add the words: 14:19:33 ... ", and should detail any known security or privacy implications for implementers, Web authors, and end users" 14:19:48 pal: For TTML there is a requirements doc. 14:19:49 https://www.w3.org/TR/security-privacy-questionnaire/ 14:20:09 plh: This is from the TAG. Writing a security or privacy section should address the questions in there. 14:20:21 pal: That's a huge change! 14:20:25 plh: What do you mean? 14:20:38 pal: We didn't have to do this before, now we have 17 extra requirements. 14:20:50 plh: They are questions. I would have thought that for TTML, which doesn't use scripting, 14:21:11 ... a lot of them will not apply. For example we're not creating an API to track user language preferences. 14:21:28 ... So most of them will not apply. If you are defining an API then you will have to answer those questions. 14:21:43 ... I would not worry about this. Obviously IMSC 1 will be a Rec before this applies. 14:22:54 plh: The questionnaire was developed for people to consider at least the minimum questions. 14:23:31 nigel: I would welcome this. The questionnaire doesn't get a link from the draft charter, 14:23:44 ... which could help to scope/describe what is meant, but they're sensible questions and 14:23:47 ... useful to reference. 14:24:02 plh: I'm happy to link to it in the charter as an example. 14:24:14 pal: I'd like that to be present. 14:24:42 plh: The other pull request changes were not as impactful. W3 legal made me slightly 14:25:09 ... tweak the wording on patent commitments. It's slightly more open wording now. 14:25:42 plh: There were also minor grammatical changes. 14:26:16 ... I rejected the proposal to put security into the success criteria and put them in the scope instead 14:26:20 ... next to accessibility. 14:26:22 nigel: Makes sense. 14:26:36 nigel: So what's the timeline now? 14:27:05 plh: If it goes tomorrow then I will propose a deadline for AC review of Friday May 13. 14:27:16 ... We're looking at mid-May for end of charter review. In the meantime you can keep 14:27:29 ... working. 14:28:43 nigel: Thank you. 14:28:46 pal: Great news. 14:28:56 plh: So I'll add the questionnaire link to the charter. 14:29:04 Topic: IMSC 14:29:30 plh: The bad news here is that Karen is in Montreal - although I said last week that we 14:29:51 ... were targeting April 19 I learned today that it's been moved to April 21. 14:30:04 ... I've told them that's the latest that we'll publish the Rec. 14:30:33 pal: I've provided Karen with testimonials and technical bullets, as well as a picture for the PR. 14:30:49 plh: Thanks for doing all that. They're still committed to doing the press release. 14:31:33 ... The document is ready by the way. There's a little internal work to get the final approval for publication. 14:32:23 nigel: The only final approval is from the Director right? 14:32:34 plh: Yes, the WBS closed without issue. 14:32:56 ... I created the Rec version by copying the PR and updating the headers and status. 14:33:09 ... Pierre has given it the once over and said it's fine. I've removed the link to the 14:33:26 ... implementation report because I don't like to put it there - it has a tendency to go stale. 14:33:55 pal: I like that idea. Thierry has archived the IR, which will be linked from the PR version. 14:34:11 ... He created a new live page for implementation and test vectors, which I have to update. 14:34:25 nigel: Are you suggesting linking to that from the Rec? 14:34:30 pal: No, I don't recommend doing that. 14:34:50 plh: The document itself is ready to go. 14:35:20 nigel: Is it too soon to start thinking about the next steps for IMSC? 14:35:33 pal: No, as soon as we're done with this my plan is to start listing features that we want 14:35:46 q+ 14:35:50 ... in IMSC 2 and also tackle the question of how to handle those features in IMSC 1 that 14:36:00 ... are also now in TTML2 but are expressed with a different syntax. 14:36:24 ... It would be a disservice to the industry to obligate folk to do things completely differently. 14:36:42 ... Either we deprecate but still support the old way and introduce a new way or we 14:36:45 ... do something else. 14:36:48 ack plh 14:37:02 plh: I had a separate but related question related to the IMSC 1 publication and the 14:37:08 ... meaning of Latest Published Version. 14:37:11 http://www.w3.org/TR/ttml-imsc1/ 14:37:28 ... When I was preparing the Rec I realised that the latest published version points to the 14:37:43 ... above link. Be aware that we have more and more WGs dealing with versioning questions. 14:37:59 ... For example in CSS what they do nowadays is have 2 latest published links, one for 14:38:07 http://www.w3.org/TR/ttml-imsc1/ 14:38:09 http://www.w3.org/TR/ttml-imsc/ 14:38:30 plh: the latest version of IMSC and one for the latest version of this version. 14:38:47 ... The question is do we want a "latest IMSC" link as well as a "latest IMSC 1"? 14:38:54 ... I don't know if there's a use case for that. 14:39:18 nigel: I think there is a use case. What do you think Pierre? 14:39:31 pal: I think that's a really good question but I don't have an answer now. There's a 14:39:43 ... difference from a device and an authorial perspective. From an authorial perspective 14:39:59 ... if IMSC.next is a superset of IMSC 1 then that's great. From an implementor's 14:40:15 ... perspective it may introduce a bunch of new features. I haven't thought about it yet. 14:40:30 plh: Can you think about it and tell me if you think there's a need for it, and with 14:40:44 ... apologies for bringing this up so late, it's going to be much harder to do after we've 14:41:01 ... published the Rec. If we can decide by Tuesday then I just have to ask the Director 14:41:06 ... if it's okay to add the link. 14:41:18 Latest published version: http://www.w3.org/TR/ttml-imsc/ 14:41:25 Latest published version 1: http://www.w3.org/TR/ttml-imsc1/ 14:41:27 s/... When I was/plh: When I was 14:41:47 plh: We'd do something like the above - one version-less, and one with a level number, 14:41:55 ... and both would appear at the top of the specification. 14:42:10 pal: Should we use the term "level"? 14:42:25 plh: No, you don't have to call it that - CSS does it that way, but they may be the only one to do that. 14:43:06 ... Other groups don't. In WebPerf we moved to this system with a slight difference: we 14:43:21 ... don't wait for documents to get to CR, we just publish a link to the latest work in progress. 14:44:42 pal: One question that comes to mind is: say IMSC 2 brings new features that need more 14:44:54 ... thinking authorially and implementation-wise. How do you warn or explain to people 14:45:10 ... that there are significant implications to clicking that link? Is the reader expected to 14:45:17 ... compare the two specs and see the differences? 14:45:39 plh: The only way I can think of is to have a section in the spec that lists the differences. 14:45:54 ... In CSS they don't mind it because it's normal to publish like this. 14:46:02 pal: And what if we do an IMSC 1.1? 14:46:18 plh: In that case I would say the latest IMSC 1 link would point to 1.1 when we consider 14:46:32 ... it to be stable enough. The Maths spec have adopted an even more complex scheme. 14:46:35 https://www.w3.org/TR/MathML/ 14:47:08 nigel: I think we should do this. 14:47:44 plh: The MathML spec as above says "Latest MathML 3 version" and "Latest MathML Recommendation" 14:47:51 pal: What about an intermediary page? 14:47:59 plh: We can add that as a top header of the specification as well. 14:48:17 pal: Imagine we have IMSC 1.1 and IMSC 2, where 1.1 has fewer changes than 2. Both 14:48:32 ... are relevant for different use cases. Some people may keep with 1.1 and others may 14:49:11 ... wait for and then adopt 2. We're in danger of stopping people from noticing 1.1. 14:49:25 plh: Unless you click on the "Latest IMSC 1 version" link? 14:49:48 ... That would always point to the latest version of IMSC 1, while the "Latest IMSC version" 14:50:00 ... link would point to 2 when it exists or 1.1 before, for example. 14:51:21 nigel: I think we shouldn't restrict the "Latest IMSC" link to a Recommendation though. 14:51:25 Latest IMSC version: http://www.w3.org/TR/imsc/ 14:51:28 Latest IMSC 1 version: http://www.w3.org/TR/imsc/ 14:51:54 pal: So imagine we have IMSC 1 2nd edition, IMSC 1.1 and IMSC 2. If you click on the 14:52:32 zcorpan_ has joined #tt 14:52:41 ... "Latest IMSC 1" what should that do - go to IMSC 1 2nd edition or IMSC 1.1? 14:53:05 nigel: So an IMSC 1 2nd Ed would incorporate errata? 14:53:26 pal: Exactly. That's the most important link to have first. That's what I think should be 14:53:32 ... "Latest Version". 14:53:54 ... My question is from IMSC 1 1st edition would the next level/version link point to IMSC 1 14:53:56 ... or IMSC 2? 14:54:15 pal: I'm thinking of having an intermediate "roadmap" page with the roadmap, telling you 14:54:29 ... all the latest published and in progress IMSC documents. 14:54:49 nigel: That could be a wiki page? 14:54:57 https://www.w3.org/TR/soap/ 14:54:57 pal: Or on /TR as a simple roadmap document. 14:55:24 plh: SOAP is the instance I know of. 14:56:16 pal: It would have no normative context. 14:56:52 pal: I can draft that quickly with Respec. Today there would be only one entry. 14:57:07 nigel: I like this idea - it's a good future proof way to deal with it. 14:57:13 pal: Okay, I'll post it to the list. 14:57:31 Topic: Profiles registry 14:57:44 atai: I just wanted to point out that we need to bring this to a state where we can 14:58:03 ... publish it as soon as possible - people are asking for the information. 14:58:32 plh: Is there anything I can do to help on this? 14:58:57 https://github.com/w3c/tt-profile-registry/pull/3 14:59:00 atai: I think there's a minimal editorial thing - to separate a big table into two smaller ones. 14:59:16 plh: So we're waiting to merge before resolving? 15:00:13 atai: The only thing outstanding is to resolve conflicts, merge, then split the table. 15:00:18 plh: Can we merge the PR? 15:00:23 nigel: Yes. 15:00:30 plh: Shall I resolve the conflicts and merge? 15:00:36 group: Yes. 15:00:45 plh: Then we can raise splitting the table as a separate issue. 15:00:52 nigel: Yes, sounds good. 15:01:05 atai: Then the other question is if there's a reference from IMSC to the Profile Registry? 15:01:19 plh: It's not published yet. Do we have agreement from the group to publish? 15:01:21 nigel: Not yet. 15:01:27 pal: We don't have to have a link. 15:01:59 plh: We can always link to it from the TR/imsc page once we have one. 15:02:00 pal: True. 15:02:12 atai: Possibly we should also check with Mike Dolan because I think he has some more 15:02:16 ... information to add to the table. 15:02:30 plh: I'll do the merge and then you can guys can proceed. 15:02:32 nigel: Thanks! 15:02:46 plh: If I cannot resolve the merge I'll reach out to you. 15:03:09 atai: I think it's only additional information, just has to be merged in layout and style. 15:03:14 ... There are no substantive conflicts. 15:03:17 plh: ok 15:04:05 atai has left #tt 15:04:45 nigel: Thanks - that was an interesting meeting in unexpected ways. We're out of time now though. Meet same time next week. [Adjourns meeting] 15:04:50 rrsagent. draft minutes 15:04:58 s/rrsagent. draft minutes// 15:05:02 rrsagent, draft minutes 15:05:02 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/04/14-tt-minutes.html nigel 15:43:58 s/... done - made it the 22nd./nigel: done - made it the 22nd. 15:47:01 s/So I'll add/I'll add 15:48:13 s/do something else./do something else [that I don't know yet]. 15:50:02 s/no normative context./no normative content. 15:50:57 rrsagent, draft minutes 15:50:57 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/04/14-tt-minutes.html nigel 15:51:52 ScribeOptions: -final -noEmbedDiagnostics 15:51:53 rrsagent, draft minutes 15:51:53 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/04/14-tt-minutes.html nigel 16:53:21 Zakim has left #tt 18:29:03 zcorpan has joined #tt 18:35:50 zcorpan has joined #tt 19:06:10 zcorpan has joined #tt 20:01:57 zcorpan has joined #tt 20:08:59 zcorpan_ has joined #tt 22:42:46 zcorpan has joined #tt 23:43:50 zcorpan has joined #tt