13:59:12 RRSAgent has joined #tt 13:59:12 logging to http://www.w3.org/2017/05/04-tt-irc 13:59:14 RRSAgent, make logs public 13:59:14 Zakim has joined #tt 13:59:16 Zakim, this will be TTML 13:59:16 ok, trackbot 13:59:17 Meeting: Timed Text Working Group Teleconference 13:59:17 Date: 04 May 2017 13:59:33 scribe: nigel 14:00:03 Present: Glenn, Nigel 14:00:04 Chair: Nigel 14:00:10 Regrets: Andreas, Thierry 14:00:27 Topic: This meeting 14:02:28 Present+ Pierre, David_Ronca 14:02:37 mike has joined #tt 14:03:40 Present+ Mike 14:03:57 Glenn: I have to leave at 40 past the hour. 14:04:05 David has joined #tt 14:05:07 Nigel: For today I think we want to focus on TTML, then HDR in PNG and IMSC, plus TPAC 14:05:15 .. Any other business? Or any specific points to raise? 14:05:22 group: [no other business] 14:05:28 Topic: TTML 14:05:46 Nigel: Thank you everyone for contributing to the extra volume of activity in the past week. 14:06:02 Nigel: Progress tracking 14:06:49 .. Some people have taken on issues, some pull requests have been merged, and proposed. 14:07:27 .. Does anyone want to assign themselves to an issue but discuss it beforehand? 14:07:34 group: [none] 14:07:45 Glenn: I think myself and Pierre have self-assigned enough that we don't need any more 14:08:02 .. right now. This month I'm focusing on getting everything out the door so I'm on a steam 14:08:11 .. roller and intend to stay on it right through the month. 14:08:30 .. There have been a couple of comments about labelling HR comments as WR. Last night 14:08:42 .. I pointed out that as long as there are other open HR issues on the WR list we can proceed 14:08:56 .. with handling those comments, however at some point we may have the current HR 14:09:13 .. issues open. If there are other issues open we may have to discuss holding off the WR 14:09:22 .. but we don't know that yet. 14:09:35 Pierre: We've had no discussion on labelling issues. 14:09:49 Glenn: Right now I'm using the WR milestone so I'd like things not to be added without 14:10:03 .. discussing them first unless you have a PR, in which feel free to put it on WR. 14:10:42 Nigel: Can we back up a level - are we talking about a milestone or a label? 14:11:04 Glenn: We're talking about a milestone - it detracts from my own processing particularly 14:11:33 .. if there's no pull request on it. If issues have a pull request they can add it to the milestone. 14:12:03 Pierre: You can just filter issues assigned to you. 14:12:20 .. A lot of issues are labelled as WR without being assigned, so I don't follow you. 14:13:28 .. We've agreed to take a group effort so you can just assign issues to yourself and use that 14:14:02 .. to filter on. 14:14:21 Glenn: you can create a new milestone TTML2WR-HR and when there's a PR move it across 14:14:27 .. to the TTML2WR milestone. 14:15:29 Pierre: Milestones are for deciding which issues need to be resolved before a release. 14:17:29 Nigel: Stepping aside from the assignee filtering it is true that we may in principle not 14:18:19 .. address all the HR issues in the WR, though accepting that Movielabs does want to 14:18:38 .. resolve them for WR. So I believe that the TTML2WR milestone is correct (and it coincides 14:18:55 .. with my understanding of the group's agreement, though I can't recall the minutes for 14:19:29 .. that) and it is reasonable to move things into TTML2WR milestone if we know we have 14:19:36 .. a resolution for them. 14:21:27 David_Ronca: I'm going to have to push back on Glenn - we're not happy with the progress 14:21:40 .. on TTML2 so we need to have confidence that we are going to finish. Having a milestone 14:22:05 .. used as somebody's personal review tool isn't appropriate. I believe that all the issues 14:22:16 .. that we believe must be resolved into WR should be tracked through a milestone. That's 14:22:30 .. the way I would do it in a software project. 14:22:45 Glenn: Right now the Editor is serving as the project manager for this particular document. 14:23:08 Nigel: If anyone thinks an issue is mis-attributed to a milestone then please raise that for 14:23:09 .. discussion. 14:23:49 Glenn: My point was that I'm effectively serving as the programme manager for TTML2 by 14:24:01 .. default as the Editor. If the group wants to review every issue and decide on what's on 14:24:10 .. that milestone list then we could do that but I think that would not be a good use of itme. 14:24:13 s/itme/time 14:24:30 David_Ronca: I just think that the milestone list should just be those issues that need to 14:24:44 .. be resolved by WR. 14:27:15 Nigel: All the issues that are not HR comments are in the TTML2WR milestone. So we have 14:27:19 .. only two cases to cover: 14:27:31 .. 1. Issues that we in fact do not want to fix in TTML2WR. 14:29:00 .. 2. HR/WR issues that have no resolution proposed but need to be fixed in TTML2WR. 14:29:13 .. My understanding was this was the position as agreed in London. 14:29:31 .. This is not excluding from resolution any issues not currently in the TTML2WR milestone. 14:29:49 .. In that case just resolve the issue and then we can move the issue to TTML2WR milestone. 14:30:03 Pierre: I don't agree with this and ask to put it on the agenda for next week so the group 14:30:08 .. can form a consensus opinion. 14:30:31 Nigel: Okay I will table that for next week. 14:30:52 .. Okay let's stop this discussion here please. 14:31:02 .. Now what pull requests or issues should we discuss? 14:31:16 Glenn: There are 2 pull requests currently open. 14:31:35 -> https://github.com/w3c/ttml2/pull/305 Updated tts:writingMode example (issue #269) 14:31:56 .. I'm wondering if we should change the existing example (and in TTML1) or add a new 14:32:12 .. example. There are two problems with the example. Firstly showing the upright 14:32:23 .. orientation of roman text, which in TTML2 would be set sideways. To achieve that example 14:32:36 .. output (in the current example) we would have to add a textOrientation="upright" 14:32:48 .. property. In TTML1 we did not have that property. I would speculate that there are few 14:33:02 .. if any implementations that do what is speculated in that original example. 14:33:16 .. The 2nd part of the issue is the bidi part. When WGBH prepared the current example and 14:33:31 .. image in TTML1 for the bidi portion there weren't any bidi implementations around so I 14:33:44 .. think Geoff did something simple which was to reverse the horizontal lettering. I 14:34:00 .. support updating that, which would be better for TTML1 and TTML2. But we do have this 14:34:07 .. technical issue on the vertical portion. 14:34:27 Nigel: Please can you add a note to the issue/pull request saying exactly what you think 14:34:32 .. needs tweaking? 14:34:42 Glenn: Yes I will do that. Thanks Pierre for moving some of this forward, I appreciate it. 14:35:02 -> https://github.com/w3c/ttml2/pull/301 Adds xml:lang to metadata examples (issue #271) 14:36:18 Nigel: I made an alternative outline proposal on this which Richard gave a +1 to. Pierre, would that work for you? 14:36:29 Pierre: Yes, I'll reassign it to you if that's ok? 14:36:32 Nigel: Ok, yes. 14:36:50 Pierre: [assigns it] 14:36:52 Nigel: Thank you. 14:37:15 Pierre: I think we need to revert a commit for the bopomofo - there was an approved PR 14:37:23 .. which was modified before merge and then there were comments. 14:37:30 -> https://github.com/w3c/ttml2/pull/303 Add note re: bopomofo 14:37:42 Glenn: I took the liberty to change it before merging it. 14:38:20 Pierre: But you approved the change, and then merged it before the 3 days? 14:38:50 Glenn: We don't want to start the clock again after every change. 14:39:02 Nigel: Actually we do, however this is editorial so the process allows for this. 14:39:39 Pierre: This seems unproductive and ineffiicient so I can't imagine why we want to do that. 14:39:54 Nigel: Can I just check if the note as currently committed is okay for you? 14:40:04 Pierre: I'm not an expert but the term that was removed is used everywhere so it seems 14:40:23 .. safest to keep it, especially as the term was used by the original commenter. It's really 14:40:34 .. the process that I'm worried about here because it's going to affect us in the future. 14:40:52 Glenn: The term zhuyin fuhao is technically accurate but not generally used except by the 14:41:02 .. Chinese, and is not used in CSS or Unicode. 14:42:41 Pierre: Typically not resolving comments doesn't make them go away but costs more in the 14:43:08 .. future. 14:43:19 Nigel: In this particular case we can simply check in with the original commenter, Richard, 14:43:34 .. and see if he is happy with the resolution. I don't think we need to worry about hypothetical 14:43:42 .. future review comments, only ones that we have actually received. 14:45:42 Nigel: I've added a comment to the original issue (#253) requesting feedback from Richard, 14:45:56 .. and highlighting the discussion we have had, and reopened the issue. 14:46:42 Nigel: Are there any other issues that anyone wants to raise for discussion even in the absence 14:49:33 .. of Glenn (who has left). 15:10:54 David_Ronca: We will start looking at the Ruby and Japanese HR issues 15:11:34 Topic: IMSC 15:11:53 David_Ronca: [drops off the call with thanks] 15:12:49 Nigel: The IMSC 1.0.1 review period will end on Sunday. The next thing will be the tests 15:12:52 .. for CR exit criteria. 15:13:09 Pierre: I haven't started on that really; my next step is to see if Andreas and I can create 15:13:15 .. more examples for lineGap. 15:16:36 Nigel: We have had some WR comments in, one that I'll just forward now with apologies 15:16:39 .. for the delay: 15:16:40 -> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-tt/2017May/0000.html 15:17:12 Pierre: I'd like to enter those comments on GitHub but they were sent privately, so how do 15:17:21 .. we do that? Can you ask them if they are happy for the comments to be made public 15:17:32 .. otherwise they will be harder to track. Or we can enter them without attribution. 15:17:36 Nigel: Okay I will do that. 15:19:21 Nigel: By the way we had a second response: 15:19:22 -> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-tt/2017Apr/0004.html 15:20:17 Nigel: My proposal would be wait until after the deadline has passed before discussing 15:20:20 .. each comment. 15:20:58 Pierre: I just found a bug and fixed it in the test vector, I don't think there's anything else. 15:21:35 -> https://github.com/w3c/imsc-tests 15:21:54 Nigel: Do they need to be reviewed? 15:22:08 Pierre: I'm just going to go with the 14 days and if there are no comments then I'll merge 15:22:15 .. them. We are not under time pressure here. 15:22:33 Nigel: Thanks, I'll take a look at those. 15:24:40 Topic: HDR in PNG 15:25:00 Pierre: We need to set a date for closing review on this. 15:25:36 Nigel: It's worth mentioning that Thierry asked Chris Lilley if he could come back with any 15:25:56 .. comments via the Color CG in 2 weeks. Chris hasn't responded yet. 15:26:07 Pierre: I'm happy to just say 4 weeks, fix something and then go forward with it until 15:26:10 .. someone complains. 15:26:55 Nigel: I don't want this to get in the way of other work that we're doing. 15:27:43 Pierre: I'm also happy with Thierry's proposal to publish now and then update. 15:28:00 Nigel: I think we should publish in 3 weeks, so a Resolution to publish next week, then 15:28:11 .. 2 more weeks. That should give plenty of time for Chris to get back to us if there's 15:28:23 .. anything needed before first publication. Otherwise we can modify the document later 15:28:29 .. with little process requirement. 15:31:24 Topic: TPAC 15:31:33 Nigel: [reviews the WBS responses as in the agenda] 15:32:07 Nigel: Okay let's close for today. Thanks all. 15:32:14 Mike: Regrets from me for the next 2 weeks. 15:32:22 Nigel: Okay, thanks Mike. [adjourns meeting] 15:32:25 rrsagent, make minutes 15:32:25 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/05/04-tt-minutes.html nigel 15:35:37 s/in which feel free/in which case feel free 15:37:08 s/.. I'm wondering/Nigel: I'm wondering 15:38:25 s/ I can't imagine why we want to do that./ I can't imagine why we want to do that [modify an approved pull request before merging]. 15:38:56 s/of Glenn (who has left)./of Glenn (who has left)? 15:40:54 rrsagent, make minutes 15:40:54 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/05/04-tt-minutes.html nigel 15:41:57 s/Nigel: I'm wondering if we/Glenn: I'm wondering if we 15:41:58 rrsagent, make minutes 15:41:58 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/05/04-tt-minutes.html nigel 15:43:10 ScribeOptions: -final -noEmbedDiagnostics 15:43:11 rrsagent, make minutes 15:43:11 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/05/04-tt-minutes.html nigel 16:30:46 Zakim has left #tt