IRC log of tt on 2016-10-27

Timestamps are in UTC.

14:00:36 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #tt
14:00:36 [RRSAgent]
logging to http://www.w3.org/2016/10/27-tt-irc
14:00:38 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs public
14:00:38 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #tt
14:00:40 [trackbot]
Zakim, this will be TTML
14:00:40 [Zakim]
ok, trackbot
14:00:41 [trackbot]
Meeting: Timed Text Working Group Teleconference
14:00:41 [trackbot]
Date: 27 October 2016
14:02:46 [nigel]
Present: Anderas, Glenn, Nigel
14:02:52 [nigel]
s/der/dre
14:02:57 [nigel]
Chair: Nigel
14:03:04 [nigel]
scribeNick: nigel
14:03:28 [nigel]
Regrets: Thierry
14:04:35 [nigel]
Present+ Pierre
14:32:19 [nigel]
nigel: Today here at the BBC, alongside Ericsson, we managed a world first, which was an entire TTML-based live subtitling solution from authoring to audience, using EBU-TT Live, EBU-TT-D and DASH.
14:32:45 [nigel]
group: [discussion about sequence numbering and identification] resulting in proposal
14:33:00 [nigel]
... to create a TTML extension spec at a later date for sequence processing.
14:33:17 [nigel]
glenn: I'll take the action to close the sequence numbering and identification issueson TTML2
14:33:26 [nigel]
... and mark them as for TTML.next or something like that.
14:33:40 [nigel]
nigel: Okay, I can't see any reason not to do that; we would need an update to the Charter
14:33:58 [nigel]
... to create a new Rec track spec.
14:34:11 [nigel]
Topic: This meeting
14:34:48 [nigel]
nigel: Agenda for today is F2F Meeting, IMSC, TTML. Any other business?
14:36:26 [nigel]
group: No other business.
14:36:30 [nigel]
Topic: F2F Meeting.
14:36:40 [nigel]
glenn: Will there be any WebVTT topics on the agenda for the F2F?
14:36:48 [nigel]
nigel: I'll check back with David on that.
14:37:13 [nigel]
action-482?
14:37:13 [trackbot]
action-482 -- Nigel Megitt to Propose 12 and 13 jan to ttwg for a f2f meeting in london -- due 2016-10-20 -- PENDINGREVIEW
14:37:13 [trackbot]
http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/tracker/actions/482
14:37:22 [nigel]
close action-482
14:37:22 [trackbot]
Closed action-482.
14:37:25 [nigel]
action-483?
14:37:25 [trackbot]
action-483 -- Thierry Michel to Create a template wiki page for the f2f details -- due 2016-10-27 -- CLOSED
14:37:25 [trackbot]
http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/tracker/actions/483
14:37:53 [nigel]
nigel: In case anyone has the original wiki page bookmarked please update your bookmark
14:38:07 [nigel]
... to http://www.w3.org/wiki/TimedText/F2F-jan-2017 - the year was wrong originally.
14:38:34 [nigel]
Topic: IMSC
14:38:38 [nigel]
action-479?
14:38:39 [trackbot]
action-479 -- Pierre-Anthony Lemieux to Refactor the imsc repository in preparation for future versions of imsc. -- due 2016-09-26 -- PENDINGREVIEW
14:38:39 [trackbot]
http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/tracker/actions/479
14:39:04 [nigel]
Pierre: I don't think I'm waiting on anyone for that.
14:39:30 [nigel]
action-484?
14:39:30 [trackbot]
action-484 -- Pierre-Anthony Lemieux to Draft a response liaison to dvb thanking them for incoming and requesting more details re timeline -- due 2016-10-27 -- OPEN
14:39:30 [trackbot]
http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/tracker/actions/484
14:39:52 [nigel]
Pierre: I'm working on my proposal for that liaison to DVB.
14:40:15 [nigel]
nigel: Is there anything else to cover on IMSC?
14:40:41 [nigel]
Pierre: No, but I'm working towards a concrete plan for discussion in the F2F, as a good arbitrary milestone. The timing seems right.
14:40:44 [nigel]
nigel: Yes it does.
14:41:08 [nigel]
Pierre: As part of the plan we have to figure out the sequence of events to keep implementers
14:41:28 [nigel]
... and other organisations in the communications so they can review and have their say.
14:41:37 [nigel]
s/communications/loop
14:41:50 [nigel]
Pierre: I think having a good plan by mid January makes sense for where we're going.
14:42:12 [nigel]
Topic: TTML1 & TTML2 issues, actions, PRs, editorial actions etc
14:42:56 [nigel]
nigel: There's been a lot of activity this week. What's most important?
14:43:16 [nigel]
glenn: On the font size issue ( https://github.com/w3c/ttml2/issues/200 ) I think there
14:44:07 [nigel]
... was a proposal to make concrete that relative value calculations are in relation to
14:44:39 [nigel]
... computed values, by improving the language. Also to improve the language around
14:44:48 [nigel]
... relative value resolution in the style processing sections.
14:45:12 [nigel]
nigel: I would also like to add the surprise result examples that I constructed.
14:45:14 [nigel]
glenn: I agree.
14:52:07 [nigel]
glenn: Some of this debate led back to a comment in TTML1 that I think we should now
14:52:52 [nigel]
... make normative, and take it out of the note. The last note in ttp:cellResolution is where this
14:53:03 [nigel]
... is elaborated. We might also want to make a statement under tts:fontSize.
14:54:20 [nigel]
nigel: So the relative value discussion is to ensure that computed values can be expressed
14:54:25 [nigel]
... in terms of rw and rh?
14:54:36 [nigel]
glenn: Yes, correct, I'll add that as a note to the issue 200.
14:58:02 [nigel]
... posted as https://github.com/w3c/ttml2/issues/200#issuecomment-256665979
14:58:30 [nigel]
... By the way I think of em as another way of writing % basically.
14:58:42 [nigel]
nigel: In the case of anamorphic scaling you would still say that em is always related to
14:58:45 [nigel]
... the height, right?
14:59:15 [nigel]
glenn: Yes, if you use em in the horizontal part of a two part font size that refers to the height
14:59:20 [nigel]
... of the font never the width.
15:00:09 [atai]
atai has left #tt
15:00:38 [nigel]
nigel: We haven't discussed use of rw and rh as measures for fontSize. I don't think it
15:00:51 [nigel]
... causes any particular difficulties but we can now make the font height proportional to
15:00:58 [nigel]
... the width of the root container region. Just noting it.
15:01:01 [nigel]
glenn: I agree.
15:01:46 [nigel]
nigel: I think that concludes on issue 200. Is there anything else we can discuss to assist
15:01:50 [nigel]
... with your editing work Glenn?
15:02:06 [nigel]
Glenn: At the moment I'm processing issues as quickly as I can, so if anyone has any
15:03:03 [nigel]
... questions on technical issues to raise then please do so. I plan to work initially on
15:03:21 [nigel]
... syntactical changes and then on semantic definitions.
15:04:33 [nigel]
... I haven't forgotten about Audio Description by the way Nigel.
15:06:26 [nigel]
nigel: And I haven't forgotten about examples. Perhaps I'll do tts:textShadow next.
15:06:55 [nigel]
Glenn: That would be a good one.
15:07:08 [nigel]
... I have not yet dealt with the background area merging, which I think is an issue on
15:07:26 [nigel]
... tts:border with <border-radii>. Have you proposed some syntax for this Nigel?
15:07:43 [nigel]
nigel: I did not think that syntax was required.
15:07:51 [nigel]
Glenn: I would like to see it as a parameter on border-radii.
15:08:18 [nigel]
Pierre: The proposal is really aesthetically pleasing. Can it be implemented in CSS?
15:08:52 [nigel]
Glenn: The web platform supports SVG so you can do anything that TTML asks for.
15:09:09 [nigel]
Pierre: I'm sure you've been following this - SVG is not supported uniformly across all browsers.
15:09:26 [nigel]
Glenn: The core SVG for TTML rendering is supported fairly uniformly across all browsers.
15:12:26 [nigel]
Pierre: [expresses desire to constrain features to what can be supported on the web platform in CSS]
15:12:43 [nigel]
Glenn: [argues that this is not a scope limit for us]
15:15:24 [nigel]
Pierre: The SVG point sounds like it answers my question: it is implementable in SVG.
15:15:37 [nigel]
Glenn: Yes. I try to rely only on a subset of SVG 1.0 not even any later versions.
15:19:13 [nigel]
Pierre: OK. [discussion of this being a feature of TTPE and testing]
15:21:43 [nigel]
Pierre: So should all the presentation semantics be implementable in SVG 1.0?
15:21:46 [nigel]
Glenn: Yes.
15:22:00 [nigel]
Nigel: There's one definite exception, which is the reference to the Web Audio spec; the
15:22:12 [nigel]
... Chair of the Web Audio Group has told me that they are expecting to move to CR before
15:22:26 [nigel]
... us on TTML2. Do we also depend on SMIL for continuous animations in SMIL?
15:22:44 [nigel]
Glenn: Actually no since SVG 1.0 has animation semantics that are based on but not
15:22:47 [nigel]
... dependent on SMIL.
15:23:21 [nigel]
Glenn: I don't see a problem with a guideline for the group being that we should avoid
15:23:33 [nigel]
... defining functionality in TTML that is known to be impossible or impractical to render
15:23:50 [nigel]
... using SVG when we are talking about visual presentation.
15:24:16 [nigel]
Pierre: I think that's a good place to start.
15:24:30 [nigel]
Glenn: Profiles might make decisions based on stricter guidelines.
15:24:33 [nigel]
Pierre: Right.
15:25:29 [nigel]
Nigel: I did have a look at the recently merged PRs and add my review comments, all positive
15:25:44 [nigel]
... if I recall correctly. I would encourage everyone to do similarly, and please add positive
15:26:21 [nigel]
... comments as well as negative ones.
15:26:44 [nigel]
Glenn: By the way on https://github.com/w3c/ttml2/issues/105 that you reopened Nigel
15:26:55 [nigel]
... I agree that we need to handle smpte discontinuous so I will add something for that.
15:27:08 [nigel]
Nigel: Great, thank you.
15:28:00 [nigel]
Nigel: Having a look at the pulse, I see https://github.com/w3c/ttml2/issues/141
15:28:29 [nigel]
Glenn: The question is if there is a requirement for alt text to be enforced on images.
15:28:39 [nigel]
Pierre: That was a long discussion on IMSC 1 so if you are going to include something
15:28:50 [nigel]
... similar in TTML2 then reuse the same text.
15:28:57 [nigel]
Glenn: I probably would not make it a Shall.
15:29:01 [nigel]
Pierre: It does not say that today.
15:29:10 [nigel]
Glenn: Okay I have no problem with making it a recommendation.
15:31:17 [nigel]
... A quick question: in TTML2 we have both foreground and background images. Can we
15:31:35 [nigel]
... safely assume that any use of background image in SMPTE-TT or IMSC 1 is as a foreground
15:31:47 [nigel]
... image with no additional information presented in front?
15:31:55 [nigel]
Pierre: Yes, certainly in IMSC 1.
15:33:00 [nigel]
... I would recommend not putting information in images that might require some kind of
15:33:04 [nigel]
... video description.
15:38:19 [nigel]
nigel: I would be careful to ensure that if there is a need to use any textual description for
15:38:33 [nigel]
... an image, for example for translating into a braille display or some other accessible
15:38:46 [nigel]
... technology, then we do not prevent that.
15:39:00 [nigel]
nigel: We're at the end of today's meeting. Thanks everyone. [adjourns meeting]
15:39:04 [nigel]
rrsagent, make minutes
15:39:04 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/10/27-tt-minutes.html nigel
15:45:13 [nigel]
s/issueson/issues on
15:48:45 [nigel]
rrsagent, make minutes
15:48:45 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/10/27-tt-minutes.html nigel
15:50:18 [nigel]
ScribeOptions: -final -noEmbedDiagnostics
15:50:20 [nigel]
rrsagent, make minutes
15:50:20 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/10/27-tt-minutes.html nigel
16:21:51 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #tt