IRC log of tt on 2017-03-23

Timestamps are in UTC.

13:59:57 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #tt
13:59:57 [RRSAgent]
logging to http://www.w3.org/2017/03/23-tt-irc
13:59:59 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs public
13:59:59 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #tt
14:00:01 [trackbot]
Zakim, this will be TTML
14:00:01 [Zakim]
ok, trackbot
14:00:02 [trackbot]
Meeting: Timed Text Working Group Teleconference
14:00:02 [trackbot]
Date: 23 March 2017
14:00:18 [nigel]
Present: Nigel
14:00:19 [nigel]
Chair: Nigel
14:00:21 [nigel]
scribe: nigel
14:00:32 [dae]
dae has joined #tt
14:00:53 [dae]
Present+ dae
14:02:10 [tmichel]
tmichel has joined #tt
14:03:01 [nigel]
Present+ Pierre
14:03:13 [nigel]
Present+ Thierry
14:08:13 [nigel]
Topic: This meeting
14:08:28 [nigel]
nigel: For today we have some TTML issues and hopefully we will have r12a joining us
14:08:46 [r12a]
r12a has joined #tt
14:09:19 [nigel]
.. shortly. For IMSC I think we need to record publication of the WR and think briefly
14:09:39 [r12a]
nigel, i can't access the details for the webex link - can you send the link via irc private message?
14:09:52 [nigel]
.. about the next steps. I will leave that until later in the meeting. Any other business, or
14:09:56 [nigel]
.. constraints?
14:10:15 [nigel]
Thierry: Someone from VideoLan sent me a few messages yesterday, and he said that the
14:10:27 [nigel]
.. IMSC spec has a lot of issues, not only considering the two additional features, but also
14:10:41 [nigel]
.. the Rec. He said that the test suite is not good enough, so I have asked him to raise
14:10:47 [nigel]
.. those questions to the mailing list.
14:10:53 [nigel]
.. So he should send something.
14:11:22 [nigel]
Pierre: Jean-Baptiste?
14:11:27 [nigel]
Thierry: Yes
14:11:43 [nigel]
Pierre: In the context of imscjs I've created a more thorough test suite based on the TTML
14:11:58 [nigel]
.. test suite (with bug fixes and made compliant with IMSC1) and the IRT test suite, and I
14:12:12 [nigel]
.. have slowly been adding additional tests as people bring up additional test cases. The
14:12:33 [nigel]
.. suite consists of the TTML documents and some intermediate documents and output
14:12:49 [nigel]
.. images. I can point to that, and my goal is to submit that back to W3C as a complete
14:13:00 [nigel]
.. IMSC test suite. Just time has been stopping me from doing that. There are a couple of
14:13:07 [nigel]
.. bugs and some tests to add and then it should be good.
14:13:16 [nigel]
.. Please let me know if there are any obstacles to doing that.
14:13:34 [nigel]
Thierry: It is probably not clear that the goal of the W3C test suite is for interop not for
14:13:41 [pal]
pal has joined #tt
14:13:44 [pal]
https://github.com/sandflow/imscJS/tree/master/src/test/resources/reference-files
14:13:51 [nigel]
Thierry: product testing. I'm not sure how we explain that, but maybe I could look at it and
14:14:20 [r12a]
can anyone see this message ? Thierry, Nigel ?
14:14:32 [nigel]
.. add some words to explain that. It is good for our purposes not for implementors.
14:14:50 [nigel]
Present+ Glenn
14:15:04 [r12a]
ah, i can't access the meeting joining information, Nigel, could you send me the webex link in private irc channel ?
14:15:09 [nigel]
nigel: However a test suite that is good for implementors will suffice for our purposes too?
14:15:11 [nigel]
Thierry: yes.
14:16:20 [nigel]
Present+ r12a
14:17:10 [nigel]
Nigel: Just closing off on this meeting, any other points to raise?
14:17:18 [nigel]
group: [silence]
14:17:45 [nigel]
Nigel: Just a reminder, in 2 weeks on 6th April I will be unable to join the meeting so if
14:17:52 [nigel]
.. anyone wants to step in to Chair, please let me know.
14:17:57 [nigel]
Topic: TTML
14:18:52 [r12a]
https://github.com/w3c/ttml2/issues/277
14:19:25 [nigel]
r12a: If we had agreement on this then it might make things easier to discuss in other areas.
14:19:33 [nigel]
Dae: Link to the CSS document please?
14:20:06 [r12a]
https://drafts.csswg.org/css-writing-modes-3/#block-flow
14:20:43 [nigel]
r12a: The reason I raised the issue in the first place is because TTML says it is following
14:20:56 [nigel]
.. CSS but CSS has recently changed before going to CR. The change was that instead of
14:21:32 [nigel]
.. using the vertical-lr and vertical-rl and then fiddling with text-orientation to make
14:21:46 [nigel]
.. latin text run up the page for example there are two new values for writing-mode, which
14:22:04 [nigel]
.. are sideways-rl and sideways-lr and they are specifically for horizontal text in a vertical
14:22:23 [nigel]
.. arrangement, e.g. for text running alongside a table these would be useful. If you had
14:22:36 [nigel]
.. some latin text running up the page and you text-align it to the end of the line, in the
14:22:50 [nigel]
.. old way the text would drop to the bottom, but with sideways-lr the text rises to the top
14:23:03 [nigel]
.. as you would expect. It also makes it easier for line breaking and the default orientation
14:23:19 [nigel]
.. for characters is much easier to handle. This makes things much easier.
14:23:33 [nigel]
.. This leaves text-orientation only applicable to vertical-* writing modes, which are what
14:23:45 [nigel]
.. you would use for Chinese, Japanese and Mongolian most of the time. They determine
14:24:00 [nigel]
.. the default orientation of characters according to Unicode TR.
14:24:11 [nigel]
.. So the text-orientation property becomes a way of influencing what's happening in
14:24:29 [nigel]
.. those vertical- modes, so for text to stand upright you would apply text-orientation.
14:24:37 [nigel]
.. But normally you would use the sideways- values.
14:25:04 [nigel]
Glenn: Right now the writingMode property in TTML is based on the XSL-FO spec rather
14:25:18 [nigel]
.. than CSS.
14:25:23 [nigel]
Nigel: Doesn't it fall through to CSS?
14:25:38 [nigel]
Glenn: No, and certainly not to the current version. Actually it enumerates all the values.
14:25:46 [nigel]
.. At the time there was no writing mode in CSS.
14:26:00 [nigel]
.. Also, since this is based on TTML1 we don't have a lot of room for changes there because
14:26:11 [nigel]
.. it is already deployed in the field. The second point is that textOrientation right now
14:26:27 [nigel]
.. has a default of "mixed" so horizontal scripts would be in sideways mode. So right now
14:26:42 [nigel]
.. if you use tbrl or tblr with Latin text it would put it in sideways mode so you would end
14:26:56 [nigel]
.. up getting what is apparently (I haven't read the details of the new CSS specs) the same
14:26:57 [r12a]
q+
14:27:12 [nigel]
Glenn: as the sideways mode, and you don't have to specify that since it is the default.
14:27:21 [nigel]
.. So I think it works exactly like you sais.
14:27:37 [nigel]
.. Also the textAlign default is start which would mean that if it were bidi Arabic it would
14:27:45 [nigel]
.. put it at the bottom in a vertical mode.
14:28:02 [nigel]
.. Again it would work correctly for both lr and rl paragraphs and would derive the textAlign
14:28:15 [nigel]
.. from that so Latin script in vertical lr would be aligned at the top, and Arabic at the bottom,
14:28:28 [nigel]
.. so it would get the same result. So I don't see any particular advantage in pulling in those
14:28:37 [nigel]
.. values from CSS at this point given the functional similarities.
14:28:40 [nigel]
ack r12a
14:28:53 [nigel]
r12a: I suspected there would be some legacy here so I put in the issue that perhaps one
14:29:18 [dae]
q+
14:29:50 [nigel]
r12a: issue would be to keep the legacy and if you want to introduce the new sideways modes.
14:30:02 [nigel]
ack dae
14:30:31 [nigel]
Dae: One question about the CSS document. It says the sideways values link to level 4 but
14:30:35 [nigel]
.. all those links are broken.
14:30:45 [nigel]
r12a: I thought it said they are at risk.
14:30:57 [nigel]
Dae: The newer editor's version seems to defer them. I'm not sure which version is newer.
14:31:11 [nigel]
.. A general to the question: how do we deal with values that are at risk or being deferred.
14:31:57 [nigel]
Glenn: textOrientation is a new property in TTML2 but writingMode was there previously
14:32:06 [nigel]
.. so we have to work around that a bit. The current definition is that the default initial
14:32:23 [nigel]
.. value is "mixed" which is defined as [reads definition from TTML2].
14:32:40 [nigel]
-> https://w3c.github.io/ttml2/spec/ttml2.html#style-attribute-textOrientation
14:32:54 [nigel]
Glenn: So you don't need to use sideways because you get the same default behaviour.
14:33:19 [nigel]
.. The only time you would need to use sideways is... hmm, that raises in my mind the question.
14:33:33 [nigel]
.. I guess if you had set the default to upright and you wanted to override with sideways
14:33:38 [nigel]
.. you might do that explicitly.
14:34:08 [nigel]
r12a: The mixed default is perfect. It says "glyphs ... are set 90º clockwise" which is fine,
14:34:25 [nigel]
.. but then it does not clarify in my mind whether if the word "Hello" would have H above
14:34:43 [nigel]
.. or below e - it sounds like only the glyphs are changed so you might end up with olleH
14:34:54 [nigel]
.. in the text. That was a stumbling issue in CSS and why they moved to the new model.
14:35:07 [nigel]
.. The other thing is "Hello world" in English and sideways-left is applied and then
14:35:20 [nigel]
.. textAlign is applied then there is the question of which way does the text move if it is
14:35:33 [nigel]
.. smaller than the box? That's not a glyph thing, it's a box thing if you like. Not just a
14:35:44 [nigel]
.. question of turning the glyphs around but applying a different mechanism to the way
14:35:47 [nigel]
.. the box is working.
14:36:16 [nigel]
Glenn: I think you're talking about the baseline and referring to the fact that in vertical
14:36:28 [nigel]
.. scripts you will sit on a centre baseline whereas a roman script will have a non-centred
14:36:30 [nigel]
.. Latin baseline?
14:36:45 [nigel]
r12a: No I'm referring to the distinction between twiddling the orientation of the glyphs and
14:36:59 [nigel]
.. changing the line direction. The TTML2 spec only seems to talk about changing the glyphs
14:37:23 [nigel]
.. individually not the group of glyphs.
14:37:53 [nigel]
Glenn: So if you had sideways-left then you would expect Hello to have H on the bottom and
14:37:57 [nigel]
.. ascenders pointing right?
14:38:08 [nigel]
r12a: The worry is that might not be the case, and that might not be the case in CSS.
14:38:22 [nigel]
.. You might still read H e l l o down the page and the descenders would point to the left
14:38:28 [nigel]
.. instead of the right, in sideways left mode.
14:39:01 [nigel]
Glenn: I guess I did not say "clockwise" or "anticlockwise" relative to what. I meant relative
14:39:19 [nigel]
.. to an upright position. That would mean counterclockwise 90º would put the ascender
14:39:21 [nigel]
.. to the left.
14:39:24 [nigel]
r12a: Right.
14:39:47 [nigel]
Glenn: In both cases I don't see anything about if it affects the entire line box as well. In
14:39:58 [nigel]
.. other words model as though setting horizontal text and rotate the line instead of the
14:40:06 [nigel]
.. glyphs. OK that's a fair point.
14:40:21 [nigel]
r12a: When the CSS folk realised that they switched to new values for writing-mode instead,
14:40:40 [nigel]
.. because that affects alignment, position of characters in the line box, etc. so it turned
14:40:51 [nigel]
.. out to be a convenient way of looking at the world. Specifically for use with what are
14:41:01 [nigel]
.. normally horizontal scripts - there are plenty of situations where you want them to run
14:41:07 [nigel]
.. up or down the page rather than horizontally.
14:41:21 [nigel]
Glenn: That's fair. In TTML1 we had an example of a latin script in a vertical mode and we
14:41:33 [nigel]
.. used upright glyphs in the example which raises the point of if it is valid to change to
14:41:46 [nigel]
.. mixed for TTML2 and have "mixed" cause rotation, which would invalidate that example,
14:42:00 [nigel]
.. even though the example was informative. That could be an issue we should document
14:42:03 [nigel]
.. and talk about more.
14:42:15 [nigel]
Glenn: I understand the comments now, Richard, thanks for those. I want to give it some
14:42:27 [nigel]
.. more consideration, but I think you also understand some of what TTML2 has done at this
14:42:38 [nigel]
.. point. There are also some existing implementations of the new features that have been
14:42:48 [nigel]
.. deployed so we have to be a little sensitive about those too.
14:43:18 [nigel]
r12a: One more thing: these sideways values in CSS are best thought of as a way to
14:43:31 [nigel]
.. rotate the box rather than the character glyphs. It helps with understanding what is
14:43:32 [nigel]
.. going on.
14:43:44 [nigel]
.. That's not necessarily what happens, but it's helpful for thinking about it.
14:43:55 [nigel]
Glenn: There may be some value in that to do with the issue of whether you start at the
14:44:09 [nigel]
.. top or the bottom. I need to cognate on that a bit more. The rotation of glyphs though
14:44:22 [nigel]
.. is still a relevant point because fonts have rotated variants and in the case that a font
14:44:38 [nigel]
.. does not have rotated variants it may perform the rotation manually on a glyph by glyph
14:44:55 [nigel]
.. basis. This comes up in asian scripts more than in roman scripts. But the same rotation
14:44:59 [nigel]
.. dimension applies to any font.
14:45:14 [nigel]
r12a: CSS does still have a sideways value for text-orientation for that kind of scenario.
14:45:44 [nigel]
Glenn: I had a conversation with @fantasai about this a few years ago, after which I think
14:45:57 [nigel]
.. the sideways versions of text orientation were taken out. We had to rely on the state
14:46:05 [nigel]
.. of the CSS definitions at that time.
14:46:19 [nigel]
Dae: Do we know when Level 4 is coming out? Are we confident that the definition of
14:46:25 [nigel]
.. sideways won't change?
14:46:43 [nigel]
r12a: I don't know the a-z of that - I know she read this and agreed with what I was
14:47:02 [nigel]
.. recommending. Firefox has implemented sideways-* already, so I am hoping that we
14:47:17 [nigel]
.. would get Chrome to support those also, so I will follow up on the status of that.
14:47:39 [nigel]
Glenn: Dae I think we cannot make any schedule dependent on a CSS document appearing
14:47:45 [nigel]
.. at Rec, so keep that in mind.
14:48:07 [nigel]
Pierre: Flipping the question around: can the CSS document reach Rec? And by what time?
14:48:19 [nigel]
r12a: I know they have been talking this week about fast-tracking some specs including
14:48:27 [nigel]
.. Writing Modes so I am hoping it will reach Rec.
14:48:46 [nigel]
Pierre: It is hard for this group to follow a CSS spec without a clear schedule, because the
14:48:50 [nigel]
.. risk is high.
14:49:01 [nigel]
r12a: That is something to talk to CSS about - it would help them I think.
14:49:38 [nigel]
.. Like Glenn said, it would be great for users as well if CSS and TTML work in similar ways
14:49:53 [nigel]
.. because they would not need two ways to think about things. There is the possibility
14:50:06 [nigel]
.. of moving ahead with this if they make sense. There are lots of examples of that in
14:50:16 [nigel]
.. TTML2 for example with Ruby, alignment and so on.
14:51:11 [nigel]
Glenn: I have brought some of those up in the past with Elika and Koji.
14:52:34 [nigel]
Nigel: Let's move on to the next issue then:
14:52:41 [nigel]
-> https://github.com/w3c/ttml2/issues/240
14:54:09 [r12a]
q+
14:54:13 [nigel]
Nigel: Pierre I think last week you thought we may be able to conclude on this?
14:54:28 [nigel]
Pierre: My conclusion from the thread is that there is a mapping for every option in CSS
14:54:37 [nigel]
.. to every option in TTML and the discussion is about the best default.
14:54:56 [nigel]
r12a: That's my understanding as well. There are three things that have been coming into
14:55:07 [nigel]
.. the conversation. They are to do with things that sit alongside the vertical line.
14:55:25 [nigel]
.. One things is text emphasis marks, another is Ruby, and another is "lines". Actually
14:55:47 [nigel]
.. the position of those things may be different depending on which thing they are.
14:56:04 [nigel]
.. There is a Ruby issue for #240 but that might not be appropriate until we've decided
14:56:19 [nigel]
.. what to do with textEmphasis. Then for me the question is what is the default specifically
14:56:28 [nigel]
.. for tblr - I'm not worried about tbrl.
14:56:43 [nigel]
Pierre: The default in TTML2 for some writing mode might not be or might be what
14:56:55 [nigel]
.. someone expects depending on language. The challenge is changing the value of
14:57:11 [nigel]
.. the default based on the value of something else makes the processing algorithms very
14:57:24 [nigel]
.. complex. That would be an implementation burden. If the issue is simply one of defaults
14:57:30 [nigel]
.. we might have to accept what TTML is today.
14:57:31 [r12a]
q+
14:57:45 [nigel]
Glenn: I concur with Pierre. We need to have a default for each property, that's a given.
14:58:02 [nigel]
.. There's no argument about whether "before" should be the effective default for tbrl or
14:58:17 [nigel]
.. any of the horizontal modes. The only question is if it would be appropriate if you were
14:58:32 [nigel]
.. using Mongolian, which apparently puts text emphasis on the after edge for tblr writing mode.
14:58:47 [nigel]
.. Now Mongolian can also be written in tbrl where you would want it to be on the before
14:58:52 [nigel]
.. side (the right side).
14:59:01 [nigel]
r12a: That's not true - you never write Mongolian tbrl.
14:59:16 [nigel]
Glenn: I have seen a number of manuscripts at Harvard that were directly from the imperial
14:59:26 [nigel]
.. language in Beijing and those were all in tbrl.
14:59:39 [nigel]
r12a: Were they Chinese documents? In that case you would see tbrl.
14:59:57 [nigel]
Glenn: They were pure Mongolian with occasional Chinese characters in. They were created
15:00:12 [nigel]
.. using the same writing practice as normal in Chinese with a scroll that gets unwound to
15:00:36 [nigel]
.. the left and the right roll gets wound in. In Mongolian they shift the scrolls 90º counter-clockwise
15:00:58 [nigel]
.. so in those scrolls they look tbrl in pure Mongolian. I've never seen a tblr Mongolian
15:01:09 [nigel]
.. document in my own research but I haven't looked at modern Mongolian other than what
15:01:25 [nigel]
.. I have seen in Chinese word processors in Inner Mongolia. I don't recall looking at text
15:01:28 [r12a]
https://github.com/w3c/type-samples/issues/55
15:01:34 [nigel]
Glenn: emphasis in those contexts though.
15:01:49 [nigel]
.. For me it's like Pierre said, adding a variation in how to derive the default behaviour
15:02:01 [nigel]
.. based on potentially a resolution of xml:lang would certainly complicate things and
15:02:11 [nigel]
.. from an implementation perspective it would be much easier to apply "before" to all modes
15:02:22 [r12a]
q+
15:02:27 [nigel]
Glenn: and then if one wants to do something different use the initial element in TTML.
15:02:42 [nigel]
.. There's no argument about what Richard says.
15:02:44 [nigel]
ack r12a
15:02:56 [nigel]
r12a: I just put a link into IRC by the way with some Mongolian text. I have been working
15:03:02 [atai]
atai has joined #tt
15:03:09 [nigel]
.. with Mongolian experts over the last 2 years and seen a lot of Mongolian text. This example
15:03:21 [glenn]
glenn has joined #tt
15:03:21 [nigel]
.. was sent to me a few days ago, with "underlining" that appears on the right hand side.
15:03:36 [nigel]
.. All of the text I have seen goes tblr. Let me clarify that I'm not asking for a decision to
15:03:49 [nigel]
.. be made based on the language. I am asking for the default to be dependent on whether
15:04:05 [nigel]
.. we have tblr or tbrl as the value, which is what CSS does. Also to clarify that the requirements
15:04:18 [nigel]
.. for Mongolian as I understand them from talking to Mongolian folks is that the same side
15:04:33 [nigel]
.. is used for the emphasis as Japanese, which means that for horizontal the line appears
15:04:48 [nigel]
.. on the other side, the same as Japanese, on the right for vertical or underneath for
15:05:01 [nigel]
.. horizontal. CSS has the same default for Mongolian as for Japanese for underlining.
15:05:16 [nigel]
.. For text emphasis I don't know if they actually do dots or sesame seeds or whatever in
15:05:25 [nigel]
.. Mongolian. The picture in the link uses a line for emphasis.
15:05:39 [nigel]
.. For Ruby, it is clear that it is always on the right hand side. I asked three Chinese experts
15:05:55 [nigel]
.. this morning how this works. In Chinese the line is used for identifying names of people,
15:06:09 [nigel]
.. book titles etc and it goes on the left hand side unlike Japanese or Mongolian. The text
15:06:22 [nigel]
.. emphasis may go on the left hand side but typically would go on the opposite side from
15:06:34 [nigel]
.. the line used for book titles etc. They said you don't see much vertical subtitling in Chinese
15:06:46 [nigel]
.. at all, and where it is used the line progression is right to left rather than left to right.
15:06:59 [nigel]
.. In Mongolian you would expect the line progression to be left to right.
15:07:24 [nigel]
.. My worry is that in most usage these days, tblr is for Mongolian, but if we are using
15:07:35 [nigel]
.. before or after then for every Mongolian subtitle you have to make sure you get things
15:07:48 [nigel]
.. on the correct side. It is not quite so straightforward because in some cases things move.
15:08:08 [nigel]
.. As I understand it in Mongolian the line goes on the left and the Ruby goes on the right.
15:08:20 [nigel]
.. It seems unfair for these, the main users of this orientation, to have to set a different
15:08:28 [nigel]
.. default. It is not based on the language but on the language model.
15:08:39 [nigel]
Glenn: In a TTML2 document you just have to put one element up in the head of the
15:08:48 [nigel]
.. document so it is not much of a burden to do that and it makes processing more
15:09:00 [nigel]
.. consistent and reduces the implementation special cases to worry about.
15:09:11 [nigel]
Pierre: Can we add a note pointing out Richard's observations?
15:09:23 [nigel]
Glenn: That would be quite appropriate, and to advise on what to do. Would that work?
15:09:36 [nigel]
r12a: That would help, yes. I agree it's only one change to make. The bigger concern is that
15:09:54 [nigel]
.. it does not address the sensitivities of people who may think there is a western or a
15:09:58 [nigel]
.. Chinese bias being introduced.
15:10:14 [nigel]
Glenn: I understand that very well!
15:10:25 [nigel]
Present+ Andreas
15:11:02 [nigel]
Glenn: I am also sensitive to implementers, and testing. It seems like an awful lot of work
15:11:14 [nigel]
.. to change the behaviour to make the default sensitive to the writing mode and also as
15:11:28 [nigel]
.. I have pointed out in the case of Chinese I have on many occasions seen tblr including
15:11:36 [nigel]
.. Ruby on the left and text emphasis on the left.
15:12:44 [nigel]
r12a: By the way text emphasis does typically occur on the left hand side but the Ruby
15:13:00 [nigel]
.. would be very unusual especially if you are using Bopomofo so that's a difference between
15:13:06 [nigel]
.. Japanese and Chinese.
15:13:25 [nigel]
Glenn: One question: at least in Mongolian proper ("outer Mongolian") Cyrillic was the
15:13:27 [r12a]
https://github.com/w3c/type-samples/issues/56
15:13:42 [nigel]
Glenn: primary script used for many years, has there been much movement to going back to
15:13:45 [nigel]
.. the primary script?
15:14:00 [nigel]
r12a: There is a strong desire to go back to the original script and I can produce lots of
15:14:06 [nigel]
.. examples quite easily.
15:14:28 [nigel]
.. I have seen books and booklets in Mongolian, I don't know about newspapers.
15:14:40 [nigel]
Glenn: It would be a useful point of note to hear what someone in a standards body in
15:14:59 [nigel]
.. the mainland's position would be because they have an official use of the script for
15:15:06 [nigel]
.. "inner Mongolia" on the Chinese side.
15:15:17 [nigel]
r12a: Most of my conversation has been with them actually.
15:17:02 [nigel]
Nigel: So one possibility is to note the option to use the initial element and another is
15:17:12 [nigel]
.. to make the default writing mode dependent - is that what CSS uses?
15:17:35 [nigel]
r12a: Yes, in CSS the terms are "over" and "under" and they are writing mode dependent.
15:17:51 [nigel]
Glenn: We could add over and under, either now or at some point in the future. My
15:17:58 [nigel]
.. preference is to add a note and not add over or under at this time.
15:18:29 [nigel]
Nigel: Does that mean that the mapping to CSS will be harder if we do not add over and under now?
15:18:46 [nigel]
Glenn: I'd have to think... If we add over and under in the future, how would that impact
15:18:58 [nigel]
.. the default now? The default now is based on auto which already has a quirk based on
15:19:13 [nigel]
.. the number of lines - it maps to "outside" for two lines which is definitely not in CSS,
15:19:25 [nigel]
.. and that came about from subtitle usage in Japan, not considering Mongolian usage.
15:19:39 [nigel]
.. If it is not two lines then it maps to "before". Even with what we have now it is not unlikely
15:19:51 [nigel]
.. that you would end up specifying a different behaviour e.g. "before" if you don't want
15:20:04 [nigel]
.. this outside behaviour. If we added over and under in the future that would not change
15:20:19 [nigel]
.. the default setting so you would still end up having to specify e.g. over instead of before
15:20:23 [nigel]
.. for the CSS behaviour now.
15:20:58 [nigel]
Pierre: My 0th order concern that there is nothing missing in TTML is met.
15:21:12 [nigel]
.. The choice of writing-mode dependent default is a departure from TTML so more
15:21:25 [nigel]
.. error prone. Adding over and under seems a middle ground. Adding a note seems
15:21:49 [nigel]
.. worthwhile regardless. The main point is that CSS diverged from XSL and TTML so we
15:21:55 [nigel]
.. have to cover those gaps as we move along.
15:22:16 [nigel]
Nigel: And you did not have a concern about mapping to CSS?
15:22:32 [nigel]
Pierre: There is a static mapping, so no.
15:23:39 [nigel]
Nigel: The group's view seems to be to go with a Note primarily, and that could be enough
15:23:53 [nigel]
.. to address the sensitivies of Mongolian readers and writers?
15:24:05 [nigel]
r12a: If you add the note then I will seek review of it.
15:24:27 [nigel]
Pierre: It is more than that, the use of initial is the ultimate way to address cultural or
15:24:30 [nigel]
.. personal preferences.
15:24:51 [nigel]
Glenn: I agree. The question should be "can you live with specifying initial?"
15:27:04 [nigel]
Nigel: Ok I have added a note to the issue about this.
15:28:13 [nigel]
.. Now lets move on to:
15:28:21 [nigel]
-> https://github.com/w3c/ttml2/issues/254
15:28:30 [nigel]
Nigel: Have we actually just discussed this?
15:28:45 [nigel]
r12a: The default preference may be different for Ruby and lines and text emphasis. In
15:28:59 [nigel]
.. Chinese the most likely thing is text emphasis on the left hand side regardless of lr or rl
15:29:11 [nigel]
.. but Ruby would be on the right hand side. I'm not sure that the answer for #240 would
15:30:32 [nigel]
.. provide the answer for this but I think that the final result is going to be the same.
15:31:15 [nigel]
Nigel: Is this the same as the discussion we just had?
15:31:28 [nigel]
r12a: It is, essentially the same and the thing that lead to #240.
15:32:58 [nigel]
Nigel: Ok I've added a note to the issue on that.
15:33:16 [nigel]
Nigel: Moving on to #253
15:33:17 [nigel]
-> https://github.com/w3c/ttml2/issues/253
15:33:53 [nigel]
Nigel: My question is do we have enough data to agree if we need to support bopofo Ruby?
15:34:10 [nigel]
r12a: We still need data about if bopomofo is used in subtitles for Chinese and I was not
15:34:26 [nigel]
.. able to get an answer to this yet when I was talking to people from Taiwan. At a minimum
15:34:40 [nigel]
.. we should not close out the possibility of adding it later if the need for it becomes stronger.
15:34:58 [nigel]
Glenn: I don't see why we could not add support for character based Ruby in the future,
15:35:37 [nigel]
.. either in IMSC or in TTML2. I've been watching [scribe missed audio] ... I wouldn't rule
15:35:49 [nigel]
.. out the use for pedagogical purposes but I don't have any data points there.
15:36:02 [nigel]
r12a: It is very much a Taiwanese thing, not used in mainland China.
15:36:53 [nigel]
Nigel: Are we expecting a response to the question on the issue any time soon?
15:37:05 [nigel]
r12a: I will take an action for myself to prompt him on that.
15:37:49 [nigel]
Dae: I think this is a primary candidate for TTML.next - one of our major subtitle authors
15:38:09 [nigel]
.. based in China never use bopomofo.
15:38:17 [nigel]
s/one of//
15:38:28 [nigel]
r12a: One possibility is that again you could put a note in saying we know we do not
15:38:45 [nigel]
.. support bopomofo ruby at the moment and even add a request for contact if anyone
15:38:58 [nigel]
.. thinks it is important. At least this shows we have not been ignorant of it.
15:39:10 [nigel]
Glenn: That's a good point.
15:41:55 [nigel]
Nigel: Okay I have added a comment on the note explaining our default position on this
15:42:02 [nigel]
.. in the absence of further data points.
15:42:08 [nigel]
-> https://github.com/w3c/ttml2/issues/253#issuecomment-288760842
15:43:06 [nigel]
Nigel: Thank you very much for joining us today Richard!
15:43:10 [nigel]
Glenn: Thanks for your input Richard.
15:43:21 [nigel]
r12a: Thanks, bye!
15:43:45 [nigel]
Nigel: In the time remaining can we very quickly cover the open pull request on TTML1?
15:43:51 [nigel]
-> https://github.com/w3c/ttml1/pull/233
15:44:06 [nigel]
Glenn: I believe this is something Andreas posted. I need to coordinate it with TTML2 actions
15:44:17 [nigel]
.. around the same text and make sure we are consistent and we have dealt with the errata
15:44:20 [nigel]
.. aspects of it.
15:44:58 [nigel]
Andreas: I think this makes sense. It has been open for 1.5 months so I think we should
15:45:04 [nigel]
.. make progress on this to clear it from the table.
15:45:54 [nigel]
Nigel: Looking at the history this is an action for Glenn then.
15:46:07 [nigel]
Glenn: My only concern there is I will probably edit it to shorten it quite considerably. It
15:46:20 [nigel]
.. seems overly detailed as a note because I don't think we want to dive into some of the
15:46:32 [nigel]
.. language around XSL-FO semantics like large allocation rectangle etc so I would like to
15:46:40 [nigel]
.. say the same thing paraphrased to make it shorter.
15:47:03 [nigel]
Andreas: Then this means it is not actually accepted.
15:47:09 [nigel]
Nigel: We'll have to review the edited version.
15:47:25 [nigel]
Pierre: As a matter of process it is weird to have a pull request open for so long. What is
15:47:31 [nigel]
.. the deadline for getting this addressed?
15:47:54 [nigel]
.. It is weird for the group to agree the essence of the pull request and then have nothing happen.
15:48:05 [nigel]
Glenn: We need to have the language the same in TTML2 and TTML1 so there is a dependency.
15:48:43 [nigel]
.. We haven't prioritised any updates on TTML1; TTML2 has a higher priority.
15:48:55 [nigel]
Nigel: We generated a big list of discussed and agreed issues for TTML1 in London.
15:49:02 [nigel]
Glenn: We don't have a schedule for a third edition.
15:49:17 [nigel]
Nigel: We don't have an agreed date for it.
15:49:30 [nigel]
Glenn: As soon as I have it addressed in TTML2 I will backfill into TTML1.
15:49:43 [nigel]
Andreas: I would like to support what Pierre said - we are quite fast in merging pull requests
15:49:56 [nigel]
.. in TTML2 and I would like to do the same in TTML1 also.
15:50:01 [nigel]
Pierre: Can we prioritise this one?
15:50:14 [nigel]
Glenn: Sure I will put it to the top of my list and do it today, in TTML2 and TTML1.
15:50:28 [nigel]
Nigel: OK thanks.
15:50:33 [nigel]
Topic: IMSC
15:50:48 [nigel]
Nigel: Thank you to Pierre and Thierry for publishing the WD for WR.
15:50:59 [nigel]
-> https://www.w3.org/TR/2017/WD-ttml-imsc1.0.1-20170322/
15:51:21 [nigel]
Nigel: That was published yesterday, and Thierry posted many messages to other W3C
15:51:29 [nigel]
.. groups requesting wide or horizontal review.
15:51:46 [nigel]
.. But not all groups - Thierry you need some input from the group?
15:51:54 [nigel]
Thierry: I'm missing privacy and security and TAG.
15:52:23 [nigel]
Nigel: Please could you do a first draft of the privacy and security questionnaire for the
15:52:25 [nigel]
.. group to review?
15:52:30 [nigel]
Thierry: Yes I will.
15:52:54 [nigel]
Nigel: Okay, adding the issue...
15:53:43 [nigel]
-> https://github.com/w3c/imsc/issues/222
15:53:58 [nigel]
Nigel: Thank you, and I have an action as previously agreed to send outgoing liaisons to
15:54:14 [nigel]
.. the usual groups based on the text that we agreed a while back. I think only the review
15:54:18 [nigel]
.. response date needs to be edited.
15:54:51 [nigel]
.. I will be able to do that probably on Monday if I can't find time to do it any sooner.
15:55:23 [nigel]
Thierry: So we might receive some comments - I propose to track those and then if we
15:55:30 [nigel]
.. need to come up with a document at the end then ...
15:55:44 [nigel]
Pierre: Can we do it through GitHub with a Wide Review comment tag on the issue?
15:55:56 [nigel]
Thierry: Do you want to use the Last Call tool or do something different?
15:56:07 [nigel]
Pierre: I assume we should track it on GitHub. Is there a downside to that?
15:56:21 [nigel]
Thierry: No I don't, at some point we need a disposition of comments document.
15:56:37 [nigel]
Pierre: I assumed we could use labels on GitHub and then generate say a PDF to be the
15:56:39 [nigel]
.. document.
15:56:50 [nigel]
Thierry: We need the comment, our resolution, and agreement from the commenter.
15:58:27 [nigel]
Nigel: I would suggest recording the issues in GitHub and also using something like the
15:58:34 [nigel]
.. Last Call tool to generate the documentation that we need.
15:58:47 [nigel]
Thierry: I am happy to maintain both, and I don't anticipate hundreds of comments.
15:59:01 [nigel]
Pierre: What is important is that every change we make to the document is tied to an
15:59:04 [nigel]
.. issue in GitHub.
15:59:19 [nigel]
.. If you prefer to use the LC tool we can probably create a bunch of GitHub issues at the
15:59:33 [nigel]
.. end and link back to the tool comment if we can, but a lot of folk look at GitHub to see
15:59:45 [nigel]
.. what issues are open. My intuition is to enter the issues on GitHub to be transparent.
15:59:56 [nigel]
Thierry: We'll start like that and if needed and there are a lot of comments I will use the
16:00:06 [nigel]
.. tool. Even with 10 comments it is faster to do it manually.
16:00:51 [nigel]
Nigel: Great I think that is everything for today and we have hit time, so thank you everyone. [adjourns meeting]
16:00:55 [nigel]
rrsagent, make minutes
16:00:55 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/03/23-tt-minutes.html nigel
16:02:33 [nigel]
Regrets: Mike
16:02:50 [nigel]
s/nigel, i can't access the details for the webex link - can you send the link via irc private message?/
16:03:04 [nigel]
s/can anyone see this message ? Thierry, Nigel ?/
16:03:11 [nigel]
s/ah, i can't access the meeting joining information, Nigel, could you send me the webex link in private irc channel ?/
16:04:17 [nigel]
rrsagent, make minutes
16:04:17 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/03/23-tt-minutes.html nigel
16:05:44 [nigel]
ScribeOptions: -final -noEmbedDiagnostics
16:05:47 [nigel]
rrsagent, make minutes
16:05:47 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/03/23-tt-minutes.html nigel
17:00:10 [atai]
atai has left #tt
17:28:17 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #tt
18:00:37 [tmichel]
tmichel has joined #tt