Timed Text Working Group Teleconference

<scribe> scribe: nigel

This Meeting

nigel: Today we have F2F planning, IMSC, Profiles Registry, TTML issues. AOB?

mike: Can we look at TTML profiles registry today or on 24th?

nigel: Sure.

group: No AOB

nigel: Any views on duration of this meeting? I've put 1 hour down on the agenda for
... meetings going forward but the 1.5 hour meetings have been productive and we still
... have a lot to do.

Andreas: In general it will be hard for me to attend for longer than 1 hour.

F2F planning

nigel: You'll have seen I've asked for registration by 23rd December at http://www.w3.org/wiki/TimedText/F2F-jan-2017
... There was an action point for me to check in with David Singer re WebVTT and if
... he will attend. He tells me he does not need agenda time at the f2f for WebVTT at present,
... though he may attend.

IMSC

action-484?

<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

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/tracker/actions/484

nigel: See thread beginning at https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-tt/2016Nov/0000.html (member only)

pal: First question is are we happy with the proposed roadmap of IMSC 1.1 dealing with a
... small number of urgent requests such that those requests do not cause an IMSC 1.1
... document to be incompatible with IMSC 1 processors, and then an IMSC2?

glenn: Do we have a roadmap document draft?

<atai> +1

pal: No, the DVB response is prompting us to consider that.

nigel: I'm happy with that proposed roadmap.

glenn: Question: Right now the features for IMSC 1.1 is disparity and possible bug fixes?

pal: Also safeCropArea, which was the DVB request.

<atai> Andreas: I am also happy with the proposed roadmap.

Glenn: Absent TTML2 your working plan is to copy the text from the TTML2 ED/WD into a
... draft of IMSC1.1?

pal: I don't want to say too much about that at this time because there are probably discussions
... to be had there. I don't have the solution to that problem but I think we can solve it.
... For example in what namespace would we put those new features, in an IMSC namespace,
... new or old, or a TTML namespace etc.?
... That's for us to define.

glenn: Right now there is no TTML2 namespace.
... The proposed roadmap sounds reasonable.

mike: Pierre set a good constraint not to harm existing IMSC 1 decoders. I'm concerned
... about inevitable feature creep if we do not set bounds. We should not assume that
... disparity will be needed for IMSC 1.1.

nigel: Well one form of boundary here is time - the draft text asks for responses in about
... one month, and we also plan for a WD in January.

mike: That works for me. I should also have said this seems like a good idea to me.

tmichel: I have no issues with this.

nigel: I declare we have consensus for this proposed roadmap.

pal: [shares screen and edits text live] (everyone can see this who is on the call)

group: [reviews text while being edited]

nigel: From the Charter: The Group will develop and publish a new version of IMSC that is compatible with TTML 2 and will address the concerns of backward compatibility with prior versions of IMSC.
... Reminder of DVB liaison received 30 Sep: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-tt/2016Sep/0001.html

group: [discussion about inclusion/exclusion of TTML2 in the liaison text]
... [comes to a compromise that mentions TTML2 without drawing focus away from the core task of requesting input on IMSC1.1]

mike: Who is this going to?

pal: Definitely DVB (with some extra introduction), SMPTE, maybe EBU, ATSC, CTA...

nigel: ARIB?

mike: They have a TTML based specification.

nigel: We are at liberty to send ARIB a liaison.

glenn: Are we going to mention safeCropArea to DVB?

pal: In the specific message to DVB we will add that.

glenn: Okay that works.

pal: What about the MPEG CMAF effort?

mike: MPEG ought to be informed, but you won't get a response until end of January.

pal: If informing them is useful let's do it.

mike: I would say so. MPEG is a little more formal in terms of transmission. I'm happy to do it again but don't want to step on anyone's toes.

pal: APEX?

nigel: In the past we talked about reaching out to APEX but decided not to, I'm not sure why.

mike: They have not reached out to us, so it would be odd to.

pal: What about DECE?

mike: They would care, so we should.

nigel: Please could you send the updated text to member-tt so I can refer to it in the minutes?

-> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-tt/2016Nov/0015.html (members only)

TTML1 & TTML2 issues, actions, PRs, editorial actions etc

glenn: I want to thank Pierre for his recent issue postings - it's interesting that most of them
... apply to TTML1 so we are getting latent scrutiny of semantics that probably have been
... long overdue!

pal: I'm glad you're enjoying it!

nigel: I updated https://github.com/w3c/ttml2/pull/218

glenn: I'm close to merging that, I'm trying to wrap up another pull request ahead of that.

nigel: I also raised https://github.com/w3c/ttml2/issues/222
... I'm assuming that the default relation of percentage values in padding should be to
... the containing element.

glenn: I'm okay with that.

nigel: (because that matches CSS)

glenn: I think that's just an oversight.

nigel: There is prior implementation here because one of the EBU profiles of TTML permits
... padding on p and span but does not specify percentage values. I think we should
... align with CSS and if EBU has a view they should come back to us.

atai: I have not had a chance to consider this yet.

Unicode Liaison

tmichel: I asked Richard Ishida to look at this and he has begun discussions with Unicode,
... who will revisit this next week and get in touch with us.

AOB

pal: Quick request: can we add a TTML1 label on the TTML2 github? Or should we continue
... to create two issues?

glenn: I've been creating duplicate issues.

nigel: By the way the resolution in TTML1 may be different to that in TTML2.

glenn: Also the TTML1 issue may be left open even if we have closed the TTML2 issue.

pal: We can continue doing it the way we have been doing it.

nigel: By the way we were going to make a new WD of TTML2 - what is the status on that?

glenn: I plan to do that by Nov 15, and have made some progress.

nigel: We're at the end of the meeting, so thank you everyone! [adjourns meeting]