IRC log of tt on 2017-04-27

Timestamps are in UTC.

14:00:22 [RRSAgent]

RRSAgent has joined #tt

14:00:22 [RRSAgent]

logging to http://www.w3.org/2017/04/27-tt-irc

14:00:24 [trackbot]

RRSAgent, make logs public

14:00:24 [Zakim]

Zakim has joined #tt

14:00:26 [trackbot]

Zakim, this will be TTML

14:00:26 [Zakim]

ok, trackbot

14:00:27 [trackbot]

Meeting: Timed Text Working Group Teleconference

14:00:27 [trackbot]

Date: 27 April 2017

14:01:28 [tmichel]

tmichel has joined #tt

14:01:40 [nigel]

Present: Glenn, Nigel, Mike, Andreas

14:01:44 [nigel]

Regrets: Thierry

14:01:46 [nigel]

scribe: nigel

14:01:48 [nigel]

Chair: Nigel

14:02:37 [tmichel]

yes I am joining ...

14:02:44 [nigel]

Regrets- Thierry

14:02:48 [nigel]

Present+ Thierry

14:02:55 [nigel]

s/yes I am joining .../

14:03:45 [nigel]

Present+ Pierre

14:04:21 [nigel]

Present+ David_Ronca

14:05:05 [nigel]

Topic: This Meeting

14:05:47 [atai]

atai has joined #tt

14:06:37 [nigel]

Nigel: Today we have TPAC, IMSC, TTML, HDR in PNG.

14:06:53 [nigel]

David_Ronca: [requests TTML2 at the head of the meeting for scheduling reasons]

14:07:32 [nigel]

Nigel: Anything else for the agenda, or AOB?

14:07:48 [nigel]

group: [no AOB]

14:08:11 [nigel]

Topic: TTML

14:09:12 [David_R]

David_R has joined #tt

14:09:25 [nigel]

Nigel: First let's look at progress tracking.

14:10:12 [nigel]

.. First thank you Glenn for assigning yourself to issues. The number you're assigned to is

14:10:26 [nigel]

.. quite a bit larger than the number of branches you have open. What's happening there?

14:10:40 [nigel]

Glenn: I've either begun work on them or thought about them and have a plan. If someone

14:11:00 [nigel]

.. wants to work on one and I don't have a branch for it then coordinate with me and let

14:11:14 [nigel]

.. me know. We can have more than one assignee for any issue.

14:11:18 [nigel]

Nigel: That's true we can.

14:11:32 [nigel]

David_Ronca: For those issues you have begun working on but do not have a branch for it

14:11:50 [nigel]

.. yet is there any reason why you wouldn't unassign yourself so people can filter on

14:11:52 [nigel]

.. assignee?

14:12:31 [nigel]

Glenn: If someone wants to take one on then just coordinate with me.

14:12:44 [nigel]

Nigel: Ok, the flip side of that is that if you're assigned to issues then that will likely put

14:13:59 [nigel]

.. other people off, and that means the Group will expect some short term work on it.

14:14:11 [nigel]

Glenn: There are 5-10 issues with no assignee that I'm less interested in, so people should

14:14:14 [nigel]

.. start with that first.

14:14:46 [nigel]

David_Ronca: What I'm interested in most is not who resolves an issue but when they are

14:15:23 [nigel]

.. resolved. I see 9 issues unassigned and marked as milestone TTML2WR, and 48 assigned

14:15:46 [nigel]

.. to Glenn. Glenn, for the issues that are open and assigned, is there any way to put an

14:15:51 [nigel]

.. expected close date on them?

14:17:41 [nigel]

Glenn: I haven't looked at them with that level of granularity.

14:18:23 [nigel]

Nigel: I think the important thing is that we have pull requests open for all those issues,

14:18:29 [nigel]

.. as the first step towards issue closure.

14:18:52 [nigel]

.. We talked about doing this by the end of May for all issues for the WR - I've had feedback

14:19:07 [nigel]

.. this week that before concluding on the WR we should review all open issues so that we

14:19:15 [nigel]

.. do not defer without due consideration, which is reasonable I think.

14:19:28 [nigel]

Glenn: Some pull requests cover multiple issues.

14:19:48 [nigel]

Nigel: Please could you mention all the issues in the Pull Request description so we can track those?

14:20:51 [nigel]

Glenn: I can add links but it may be difficult to uncover the information.

14:21:06 [nigel]

Nigel: Has anyone else assigned themselves any issues?

14:21:30 [nigel]

Pierre: My plan is to assign myself all the horizontal review comment issues and to resolve

14:21:46 [nigel]

.. them before wide review. That can either be by pull request or to defer until never or later.

14:22:01 [nigel]

Nigel: Okay, will you pick them up one at a time?

14:22:17 [nigel]

Pierre: Yes, I'll review them, hopefully with Richard, and maybe close some of them in parallel

14:22:42 [nigel]

.. or some sequentially. I don't plan to assign myself to them all at once.

14:22:57 [nigel]

David_Ronca: Due to other commitments I haven't managed to meet internally, but in the

14:23:15 [nigel]

.. next week we'll all be back and will review and see what we can assign internally to the team.

14:23:32 [nigel]

Pierre: I have a question re:

14:23:39 [nigel]

-> https://github.com/w3c/ttml2/issues/274 Add an illustration of pinyin for ruby align

14:24:04 [nigel]

Pierre: There, Glenn has a comment, so you have an opinion and have thought about it, but

14:24:12 [nigel]

.. you have not assigned it to yourself. Is it okay for me to proceed?

14:24:24 [nigel]

Glenn: Yes, please do. I did not try to assign to myself any of the i18n comments from the

14:24:32 [nigel]

.. recent review, because they're not on the WR milestone.

14:24:35 [nigel]

Pierre: Why is that?

14:25:04 [nigel]

Glenn: Because they came in from outside the group so I consider it part of the preliminary

14:25:15 [nigel]

.. wide review comments.

14:25:47 [nigel]

.. If I had no other issues to work on I would probably take these on.

14:26:06 [nigel]

Pierre: There are other issues that other people can handle that don't relate to complex

14:26:12 [nigel]

.. script layout issues.

14:26:27 [nigel]

Glenn: Some of those others are in areas that I do have deep expertise on.

14:26:37 [nigel]

David_Ronca: This is also something that Dae has worked on.

14:27:26 [nigel]

.. How about we set a target for assigning issues?

14:28:12 [nigel]

Nigel: I'd like to treat this more like weekly sprints so please assign yourself issues on a

14:28:31 [nigel]

.. week by week basis so that we can track the curve as the weeks go by and not block

14:28:44 [nigel]

.. others from picking up issues because they're already assigned, if that is ok.

14:28:53 [nigel]

David_Ronca: That's fine, I'll pick that up with the team next week.

14:29:27 [nigel]

Nigel: Can anyone else let us know now about any issues they can pick up and work on

14:29:30 [nigel]

.. over the next week?

14:29:41 [nigel]

Pierre: What about the TTML1 issues?

14:30:00 [nigel]

Nigel: They're in scope too because they generally apply to both TTML1 and TTML2.

14:30:05 [nigel]

Pierre: Here's a simple one:

14:30:17 [nigel]

-> https://github.com/w3c/ttml2/issues/215 tts:extent="auto" vs tts:extent="100% 100%"

14:30:50 [nigel]

Nigel: That's assigned to Glenn, and he said he is rewriting that text anyway.

14:30:54 [nigel]

Pierre: That was in November.

14:31:07 [nigel]

Glenn: On this particular one I don't actually agree with the proposed change. Auto is a

14:31:23 [nigel]

.. proxy we often use to express a default without repeating the definition of the default

14:31:35 [nigel]

.. everywhere that proxy is used. I don't think there's any technical reason not to use auto

14:31:52 [nigel]

.. in place of 100% 100%. Also if we use auto then it's easier to change what that means in

14:31:59 [nigel]

.. one place, rather than everywhere it is used.

14:32:24 [nigel]

Nigel: If that's your thought process it would be helpful to add it to the issue.

14:33:01 [nigel]

Glenn: Basically I consider this issue to be a request for early binding of the extent.

14:33:45 [nigel]

Nigel: In this case maybe the preferred choice is to close the issue without any change.

14:33:58 [nigel]

Glenn: The TTML1/TTML2 issue is an important one. In principle we should have resolved

14:34:31 [nigel]

.. all the open TTML1 issues and incorporate those resolutions into TTML2 before PR,

14:34:53 [nigel]

.. would anyone disagree with that?

14:34:59 [nigel]

Nigel: I think that's already agreed.

14:35:06 [nigel]

Pierre: Agreed.

14:35:17 [nigel]

Glenn: I just want to point out we don't have tracking issues for every TTML2 issue that has

14:36:07 [nigel]

.. a TTML1 issue, so there is more work than is indicated by the currently open issues.

14:36:21 [nigel]

Nigel: How should we handle that, open tracking issues, or add the TTML1 issues to the set

14:36:24 [nigel]

.. we are tracking for TTML2?

14:36:58 [nigel]

Glenn: Or we could open an umbrella issue for TTML2.

14:37:17 [nigel]

Nigel: That could simply consist of a list of TTML1 issue references.

14:37:27 [nigel]

Glenn: I think it would be useful to have that umbrella issue at least to begin with.

14:37:48 [nigel]

Nigel: Shall I create that umbrella issue?

14:37:51 [nigel]

Glenn: Thanks.

14:38:02 [nigel]

David_Ronca: I have drop off now - thanks a lot guys.

14:38:19 [nigel]

Pierre: How about:

14:38:43 [nigel]

-> https://github.com/w3c/ttml2/issues/219 Step 10.4.4.2(6)(a) does not apply to textDecoration

14:39:01 [nigel]

Pierre: This is discussed and agreed, really narrow, has had no movement since London, so

14:39:11 [nigel]

.. that would be a perfect candidate in my mind for anyone in the group to take on.

14:39:28 [nigel]

Glenn: As I already mentioned, if you would like to add yourself to an issue assigned to me,

14:39:34 [nigel]

.. feel free to do that.

14:40:33 [nigel]

Nigel: can anyone take this on?

14:40:46 [nigel]

Glenn: We need to resolve this in TTML1 - coincidentally it is #219 in TTML1.

14:41:05 [nigel]

.. This comes under the PR for TTML1.

14:41:13 [nigel]

Pierre: I'd like to broaden the set of folk working on stuff.

14:41:29 [nigel]

.. I'd get to it eventually but I'm going to prioritise the HR comments.

14:41:36 [nigel]

Glenn: I'll get to it eventually as well.

14:41:53 [nigel]

Action: nigel Create an umbrella issue for TTML1 issues in TTML2

14:41:59 [trackbot]

Created ACTION-496 - Create an umbrella issue for ttml1 issues in ttml2 [on Nigel Megitt - due 2017-05-04].

14:42:55 [nigel]

Nigel: OK let's take that general approach - nobody is coming forward for this now but I

14:43:08 [nigel]

.. guess some folks' ears are burning but they want to think about their workload and look

14:43:14 [nigel]

.. at the open issues and see what they can take on.

14:43:38 [nigel]

.. We'll come back to this again next week, and obviously anyone can assign themself to an

14:43:41 [nigel]

.. issue in the meantime.

14:43:51 [nigel]

Nigel: The next thing to do is to review the existing open pull requests.

14:44:29 [nigel]

-> https://github.com/w3c/ttml1/pull/233 Clarify application of padding (#221)

14:44:43 [nigel]

Glenn: Andreas and I have gone back and forth on the utility of adding implementation detail.

14:44:57 [nigel]

.. I agree that we could say a little more because it doesn't hurt to contextualise the subject

14:45:10 [nigel]

.. with regards to the XSL-FO model. I'm not prepared to go all the way to the level of detail

14:45:15 [nigel]

.. that Andreas originally proposed.

14:46:18 [nigel]

.. Looking at today's comment, Andreas said that how padding is applied diverges from XSL-FO.

14:46:29 [nigel]

.. I don't agree with that because, although XSL-FO does have some semantics regarding

14:46:44 [nigel]

.. regions and page layout semantics, the TTML definition of region is entirely different.

14:46:56 [nigel]

.. Maybe we need to point that out, in any case we are defining something different and

14:47:07 [atai]

q+

14:47:12 [nigel]

.. saying how it maps to XSL-FO, in §9.3.3 Synchronic Document Construction.

14:47:27 [nigel]

.. What it might be useful to do, as a subset of what Andreas proposed, is to add a note that

14:47:42 [nigel]

.. clarifies that the extent of region maps to the allocation rectangle of the block area that

14:48:00 [nigel]

.. is generated by the block container to which the TTML region element is mapped.

14:48:45 [nigel]

.. See also my comments on https://github.com/w3c/ttml1/pull/233#issuecomment-297637021

14:49:18 [nigel]

.. In earlier comments I think Pierre had asked the question of whether extent maps to

14:49:29 [nigel]

.. padding rectangle or content rectangle, and I commented that it is neither, but to the

14:49:43 [nigel]

.. allocation rectangle from which those other rectangles are derived. I'm prepared to add

14:49:55 [nigel]

.. an additional comment with less detail than what Andreas asked for but says what I just

14:50:03 [nigel]

.. said but does attempt to clarify that mapping.

14:50:06 [nigel]

ack atai

14:50:19 [nigel]

Andreas: In response to the first point, I'm still of the opinion that on this one area we

14:50:31 [nigel]

.. really diverge from XSL-FO and that makes it hard to explain how we relate to XSL-FO and

14:50:45 [nigel]

.. also CSS. I was not referring to the region element in XSL-FO, but to the way block areas

14:50:59 [nigel]

.. are handled. The way TTML does it, defining the allocation rectangle and then applying

14:51:14 [nigel]

.. inset space has no correspondence in XSL-FO. You cannot define the width and height

14:51:25 [nigel]

.. of an allocation rectangle in XSL-FO, which makes it hard to relate to and also tricky to

14:51:43 [nigel]

.. implement using CSS models and concepts. We both expressed our points, but hte most

14:51:55 [nigel]

.. important thing is that users get the right understanding. I'm happy with any change

14:52:09 [nigel]

.. that gives users the right understanding of how this works.

14:52:35 [nigel]

Nigel: Are you saying that Glenn's proposal would achieve that or not?

14:52:46 [nigel]

Andreas: As I mentioned, I would like input from other members of this Group too.

14:53:05 [nigel]

.. If we can explain how it works clearly without referencing the conceptual model then

14:53:15 [nigel]

.. I am happy with that, but I want to hear other opinions about it.

14:53:45 [nigel]

Glenn: I have an addendum to my opinion: another way to think about it is to posit the

14:53:58 [nigel]

.. existence of a container that the block container is a child of, and then have the extent

14:54:10 [nigel]

.. of the TTML region be assigned to the content rectangle of that posited outer shell

14:54:24 [nigel]

.. container. That can be done conceptually without actually having to generate such an

14:54:39 [nigel]

.. element in the flow object hierarchy. Or if one really wants to do that in XSL-FO there's

14:55:00 [nigel]

.. an element called staticContent that could potentially be used for that purpose. A common

14:55:13 [nigel]

.. use is for running headers and footers, except in XSL-FO the content is repeated on every

14:55:26 [nigel]

.. page, though the generated ISD outputs could be considered to be pages in the XSL-FO

14:55:30 [nigel]

.. sense, to make that leap of logic.

14:55:43 [nigel]

Andreas: I'm a bit worried that we make it even more complicated using a different solution.

14:56:17 [nigel]

.. There is a discussed and agreed label, so I assume that members have read the original

14:56:29 [nigel]

.. pull request and approved it. If we take on another edit then there must at least be some

14:56:39 [nigel]

.. feedback from the group expressing some kind of preference.

14:57:21 [nigel]

Pierre: TTML1 has text directly relating to XSL-FO. Couldn't the clarification be put there?

14:57:38 [nigel]

.. I understand that it might not be appropriate to put it far away from where it is defined.

14:57:50 [nigel]

.. Surely there should be a place to put it assuming it is not false?

14:58:06 [nigel]

Glenn: I don't know if it is false or not - we could certainly put the detail note in §9.3.3

14:58:23 [nigel]

.. where the allocation rectangle is defined. I think the current proposal is too detailed

14:58:34 [nigel]

.. and application specific and I'm not prepared to accept it. Different implementations can

14:58:39 [nigel]

.. do different things.

14:59:00 [nigel]

Andreas: I'm willing to accept the edited pull request from Glenn then. I read through it

14:59:18 [nigel]

.. and also with the test cases provided by Pierre today it might be enough to see how it

14:59:34 [nigel]

.. works. The trouble with XSL-FO is people might not be deeply into that, so its debatable

14:59:46 [nigel]

.. how helpful it is. For me, if we use Glenn's edit and then possibly add some more text to

15:00:04 [nigel]

.. clarify that extent corresponds to the allocation rectangle of the region then I'm fine with that.

15:00:20 [nigel]

Pierre: I'll file a separate issue because the same term "region area" is used for overflow and

15:00:38 [nigel]

.. I'm fairly certain that we want any clipping to occur on the inset content area.

15:00:53 [nigel]

Andreas: There are different areas, but if we do not clarify exactly which one we mean then

15:01:07 [nigel]

.. it is not clear which applies, so some additional wording would be helpful there.

15:01:21 [nigel]

Glenn: I assume that if clipping occurs then it is the content rectangle.

15:01:31 [nigel]

Pierre: I think that's what everyone assumes, so let's file an issue for that.

15:01:44 [nigel]

Glenn: I think I've heard a plan here to accept the pull request plus an additional note on

15:01:59 [nigel]

.. §9.3.3 right under the bit about TTML regions mapping to block containers, in which I

15:02:12 [nigel]

.. would say that it constrains the allocation rectangle. I can do that. First I will update the

15:02:25 [nigel]

.. pull request with a new commit on that branch adding that note, and if the group accepts

15:02:41 [nigel]

.. it then I'll go ahead and merge it. I'm asking that we pre-accept that so we don't need

15:02:45 [nigel]

.. another round of review.

15:03:00 [nigel]

Pierre: The process is you'll submit the PR and then there's a 3 day review.

15:03:06 [nigel]

Glenn: I'm asking for a quick merge.

15:03:11 [nigel]

Pierre: I need the 3 days.

15:03:15 [nigel]

Andreas: I do too.

15:03:45 [nigel]

Nigel: Thanks for the constructive conversation everyone.

15:04:18 [nigel]

Andreas: I have to drop off - I just want to check about the agenda saying 60 minutes?

15:04:34 [atai]

atai has left #tt

15:05:09 [nigel]

Nigel: The first line in the agenda should say 120 not 60 - that's an oversight on my part, apologies.

15:05:15 [nigel]

Andreas: OK. [leaves]

15:05:21 [nigel]

Nigel: Let's take a 5 minute break...

15:05:38 [nigel]

rrsagent, make minutes

15:05:38 [RRSAgent]

I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/04/27-tt-minutes.html nigel

15:13:45 [nigel]

Glenn: I have one follow-up comment from before the break - I just want to remind us that

15:13:59 [nigel]

.. strictly editorial non-substantive changes do not require the 3 day period according to

15:14:05 [nigel]

.. the current process.

15:14:20 [nigel]

Pierre: I was not accusing you of being malicious by merging early, but for the point of

15:14:39 [nigel]

.. efficiency it is a lot more efficient to leave a review period and deal with comments rather

15:14:47 [nigel]

.. than open a new issue etc.

15:14:56 [nigel]

Glenn: My view is just the opposite about efficiency.

15:15:22 [nigel]

Nigel: Let's look at the next pull request:

15:15:31 [nigel]

-> https://github.com/w3c/ttml1/pull/238 Issue 0237 css2 reference

15:16:51 [nigel]

Glenn: I moved the reference to CSS2 to be in a Note and moved the CSS2 reference to the

15:17:02 [nigel]

.. Other references because it is clearly no longer possibly normative.

15:17:16 [nigel]

.. When it comes to merging this into TTML2 I need to re-review in case there are other

15:17:38 [nigel]

.. places where CSS2 has come in as a normative reference.

15:17:44 [nigel]

Nigel: Yes, it's worth doing that review.

15:19:52 [nigel]

Nigel: Looks good to me.

15:20:32 [nigel]

Glenn: This will merge into the ED of TTML1 and then I will propose an equivalent pull request

15:20:35 [nigel]

.. for TTML2.

15:21:26 [nigel]

Pierre: I will add a review approval too, to match the comment I made.

15:22:21 [nigel]

Nigel: With 2x LGTM you could probably merge this now but it would be fair in the process

15:22:24 [nigel]

.. to wait until tomorrow Glenn.

15:23:20 [nigel]

-> https://github.com/w3c/ttml2/pull/273 Issue 0203 add examples of ja features part 2

15:23:28 [nigel]

Nigel: This has been open since March, what's going on...

15:23:41 [nigel]

.. Okay we don't have Dae with us today, and the last status is that Richard Ishida was

15:23:53 [nigel]

.. looking at it. I will prompt him.

15:24:06 [nigel]

Glenn: This contains some examples of some of the new Ruby functionality particularly

15:24:19 [nigel]

.. Ruby overflow and Ruby Overhang and since I have not reviewed it I do not know if it

15:24:27 [nigel]

.. correct. I will first of all review it for correctness.

15:25:32 [nigel]

nigel: I've added a comment to the pull request.

15:26:00 [nigel]

-> https://github.com/w3c/ttml2/pull/294 Revised tts:luminanceGain

15:26:42 [nigel]

Nigel: I haven't had chance to review this yet but it would be helpful to review and merge

15:26:51 [nigel]

.. so I can merge the same fixes in to the other HDR pull request.

15:28:45 [nigel]

Glenn: It looks like that incorporates Nigel's comments.

15:28:54 [nigel]

Nigel: I see that, yes great, looks good.

15:29:50 [nigel]

Glenn: Can I go ahead and merge?

15:30:01 [nigel]

Nigel: If you've reviewed then it would be good to add that to the pull request.

15:30:22 [nigel]

Glenn: I've done that.

15:30:29 [nigel]

Nigel: I don't see why that can't be merged at this stage. Thank you.

15:30:40 [nigel]

Glenn: I'll do that after the call.

15:30:50 [nigel]

Nigel: Once you've done that then I'll update my follow-on pull request:

15:31:04 [nigel]

-> https://github.com/w3c/ttml2/pull/299 Issue #298 sRGB on HLG

15:31:42 [nigel]

Glenn: My only comment on that is that the newly added reference doesn't really match

15:31:54 [nigel]

.. the format that we've used with the other ISO references, for example it includes the

15:32:09 [nigel]

.. ISO reference within the title, whereas the others include only the name portion. The

15:32:22 [nigel]

.. other is that you've been extremely specific in the way you have referenced the ISO number

15:32:40 [nigel]

.. and the CIE number and the date, etc. and generally we have not added dates or tried

15:32:55 [nigel]

.. to be overly specific on these references. Mike raised an issue on this recently that might

15:32:57 [nigel]

.. bear on this point.

15:34:02 [nigel]

Nigel: That's:

15:34:14 [nigel]

-> https://github.com/w3c/ttml2/issues/293 reference versioning

15:34:50 [nigel]

Glenn: The first question is if we need both the ISO and the CIE references?

15:35:08 [nigel]

Nigel: I think so since the same document exists in both organisations.

15:35:22 [nigel]

Mike: Technically the CIE is a process document. They process jointly with ISO.

15:36:14 [nigel]

Glenn: I would suggest using the ISO reference, rather than the CIE. Also you've used the

15:36:24 [nigel]

.. key of CIE-XYZ. I like to keep those shorter.

15:36:31 [nigel]

Nigel: I'm happy to change the key to XYZ.

15:36:43 [nigel]

Glenn: If you do it that way you may be able to remove the CIE portion of the reference.

15:36:53 [nigel]

.. Also you refer to a specific year on the ISO document, where we don't generally do that.

15:37:06 [nigel]

.. For example we recently added CMAF without a year reference.

15:37:41 [nigel]

Mike: The first question is does W3C have a policy for what an unversioned reference means?

15:37:51 [nigel]

.. If not then you need to put the version of the reference in.

15:38:48 [nigel]

Thierry: I don't think W3C defines what an unversioned reference means.

15:39:04 [nigel]

Glenn: Operationally speaking it has always been understood to mean "the latest" but it is

15:39:18 [nigel]

.. not explicit. When Mike says that if there is no version then we must specify one. That

15:39:33 [nigel]

.. has not been the practice in W3C or in TTML. For example we don't specify years in

15:39:56 [nigel]

.. ISO specification references. If we create a new policy to reference versions then we are

15:40:01 [nigel]

.. going to have to change a lot of references.

15:40:20 [nigel]

Mike: Certainly in TTML2, there's a lot of water under the bridge in TTML1. I don't follow

15:40:31 [nigel]

.. your argument - we have a version of CSS2 for example that has been mentioned recently.

15:40:46 [nigel]

.. My poster-child for this is a SMPTE document that references UNIX tar and someone

15:41:03 [nigel]

.. blindly updated the year on the ANSI standard and in fact ANSI had entirely removed

15:41:14 [nigel]

.. tar from that particular standard. You never know what you will get in future versions.

15:41:42 [nigel]

Glenn: One question is if there is a stable link to a document. For W3C specifications we

15:42:02 [nigel]

.. generally use a dated link to the document on /TR, but HTML5 points to the unversioned

15:42:27 [nigel]

.. "latest" link in /TR. One of the issue is that some of the linked URLs are not necessarily

15:42:34 [nigel]

.. maintained by their organisations as stable URLs.

15:42:50 [nigel]

Mike: I think as a general rule no standards body (other than W3C or IETF) maintains

15:43:05 [nigel]

.. stable links. In fact it is quite difficult to get older versions of things.

15:43:28 [nigel]

Glenn: Another thing I find interesting is that for IMSC1 we discussed dot-dot vs dot

15:43:42 [nigel]

.. versions. Thierry mentioned that it is assumed that newer versions supersede older

15:43:55 [nigel]

.. versions automatically. That surprised me. I've never thought that. That might explain

15:44:06 [nigel]

.. why W3C has sometimes not put dated versions in, but that makes it a moving target

15:44:09 [nigel]

.. as you have pointed out.

15:44:21 [nigel]

Mike: Yes, at some point you will get into trouble with interoperability.

15:44:33 [nigel]

Glenn: For TTML2 we need to review all of the references and decide if we want to augment

15:45:09 [nigel]

.. them with version data.

15:45:22 [nigel]

Nigel: You could set a general rule of "the most recently published one at the time of

15:45:29 [nigel]

.. spec publication" but that would be hard to manage.

15:45:38 [nigel]

Mike: That's impossible.

15:45:50 [nigel]

Pierre: Yes that's too difficult.

15:46:03 [nigel]

.. The way to go is to use dated versions except where we specifically want to track changes,

15:46:07 [nigel]

.. for example for registries.

15:46:11 [nigel]

Mike: That makes sense.

15:46:30 [nigel]

Glenn: Maybe the resolution for #293 is to go through all the references and check them out.

15:46:41 [nigel]

.. That's not one that I assigned myself to. Maybe someone would like to do that.

15:46:52 [nigel]

Mike: If it is not the current version of the spec as it is today then I'm not sure how we go

15:47:07 [nigel]

.. about resolving that. For example with CSS2 vs CSS2.1 we know there is a difference and

15:47:31 [nigel]

.. there's a right answer. The thing that triggered it for me is documents I know about - I

15:47:39 [nigel]

.. can certainly fix those. I don't know about the W3C references.

15:47:54 [nigel]

Glenn: I'm looking at the W3C references in TTML2 and it looks as though all of them point

15:48:13 [nigel]

.. to a dated version, so that shouldn't need changing. I have always avoided the "latest" link.

15:48:41 [nigel]

Nigel: Can I assign this to you for those you can handle Mike?

15:48:53 [nigel]

Mike: Sure. For normative references especially we need to be specific. It may be as simple

15:49:14 [nigel]

.. as putting the date in. So I might be able to do this even for the W3C references if the

15:49:17 [nigel]

.. dates are already present.

15:50:30 [nigel]

Nigel: Ok I've changed the labels, added a comment and assigned that issue.

15:51:07 [nigel]

Nigel: For the pull request #299 Glenn please could you add those comments and I will

15:51:09 [nigel]

.. process them?

15:51:11 [nigel]

Glenn: Okay.

15:51:52 [nigel]

-> https://github.com/w3c/ttml2/pull/297 Issue 0296 inline block

15:52:15 [nigel]

Nigel: We don't really have time to cover this today, I have added some review comments

15:52:19 [nigel]

.. and asked a question.

15:53:10 [nigel]

Topic: TPAC 2017 planning.

15:53:24 [nigel]

Nigel: Note I have completed the survey for the group, with answers as described in the

15:53:34 [nigel]

.. agenda - please let me know if you think any of those answers need to be changed.

15:53:52 [nigel]

Topic: HDR in PNG

15:54:06 [nigel]

Pierre: How do we proceed to publishing that Note?

15:54:20 [nigel]

.. I have forwarded it to Chris Lilley and have not heard back so should we just put it up for

15:54:30 [nigel]

.. official review on the reflector, asking for review, and then we can go ahead?

15:54:36 [nigel]

Nigel: yes, that seems like a good way forward.

15:54:44 [nigel]

Glenn: And the audience for review is our working group?

15:55:12 [nigel]

Pierre: Correct.

15:55:28 [nigel]

Nigel: If anyone (in or out of this group) has an interest feel free to point them to it.

15:55:36 [nigel]

Glenn: We don't have an obligation for review for the Note.

15:55:48 [nigel]

Pierre: I'd suggest starting a review clock for this.

15:56:10 [nigel]

Nigel: When would you close the review?

15:56:22 [nigel]

Pierre: Two weeks from today - if anyone asks for more time then we can adjust.

15:56:28 [nigel]

.. That would be May 12th.

15:57:02 [nigel]

Nigel: Okay, I'll send out a request to the group.

15:57:08 [nigel]

Action-495?

15:57:08 [trackbot]

Action-495 -- Thierry Michel to Update the ttwg homepage and publications pages for the new repos -- due 2017-04-20 -- OPEN

15:57:08 [trackbot]

http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/tracker/actions/495

15:57:40 [nigel]

Thierry: I'll update those pages to reference the HDR in PNG document.

15:57:54 [nigel]

Nigel: I'd be very interested to know Chris Lilley's opinion too.

15:57:57 [nigel]

Thierry: I will ping him again.

15:58:04 [nigel]

Topic: IMSC

15:58:21 [nigel]

Nigel: I think the point to raise here is about CR exit criteria.

15:58:38 [nigel]

Pierre: Yes, I am also waiting for comments to come back. The baseline is only to test

15:58:54 [nigel]

.. the added features. I don't have a lineGap implementation. It might be nice to have a

15:59:01 [nigel]

.. vertical writing example too.

15:59:06 [nigel]

.. I will ask Andreas about that.

15:59:40 [nigel]

.. I don't expect a large test suite but it will be a challenge to generate the examples.

16:00:05 [nigel]

Nigel: I know we updated our gstreamer implementation to do lineGap but I do not know

16:00:09 [nigel]

.. if it does vertical writing.

16:01:14 [nigel]

Nigel: We had a liaison response today, available at https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-tt/2017Apr/0004.html

16:01:29 [nigel]

.. The sender requested member-only visibility.

16:02:15 [nigel]

Nigel: I should also have mentioned under TTML2 that there was some further TAG

16:02:36 [nigel]

.. discussion, at:

16:02:54 [nigel]

-> https://github.com/w3ctag/design-reviews/issues/138 Timed Text Markup Language 2 (TTML2)

16:04:25 [nigel]

Pierre: I might be able to point the commenter at IMSC.js for a practical example of the polyfill question.

16:05:01 [nigel]

Glenn: I would say that it is a subset, since practicality might be arguable. Not "the practical subset" but "a practical subset".

16:05:31 [nigel]

Nigel: I also want to acknowledge Pierre's message about the test suite - thank you for that.

16:07:55 [nigel]

Nigel: Thank you everyone, we are slightly over time today, apologies. [adjourns meeting]

16:07:59 [nigel]

rrsagent, make minutes

16:07:59 [RRSAgent]

I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/04/27-tt-minutes.html nigel

16:15:04 [nigel]

s/Ok, the flip side of that is that is that if/If

16:15:27 [nigel]

s/, and that means the Group/, and the flip side of that is that the Group

16:17:38 [nigel]

s/I have drop off now - thanks a lot guys/I have to drop off now - thanks a lot guys

16:19:10 [nigel]

s/but hte most/but the most

16:21:31 [nigel]

s/Let's take a 5 minute break.../Let's take a 5 minute break... [5 minutes elapses] ... and we're back

16:22:01 [nigel]

s/Other references/Other References

16:23:10 [nigel]

s/They process jointly with ISO/They publish jointly with ISO

16:25:35 [nigel]

rrsagent, make minutes

16:25:35 [RRSAgent]

I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/04/27-tt-minutes.html nigel

16:28:02 [nigel]

s/Ok, the flip side of that is that if/If

16:28:03 [nigel]

rrsagent, make minutes

16:28:03 [RRSAgent]

I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/04/27-tt-minutes.html nigel

16:28:48 [nigel]

ScribeOptions: -final -noEmbedDiagnostics

16:28:49 [nigel]

rrsagent, make minutes

16:28:49 [RRSAgent]

I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/04/27-tt-minutes.html nigel

16:58:54 [Zakim]

Zakim has left #tt