14:02:51 RRSAgent has joined #tt 14:02:51 logging to http://www.w3.org/2017/05/11-tt-irc 14:02:53 RRSAgent, make logs public 14:02:53 Zakim has joined #tt 14:02:55 Zakim, this will be TTML 14:02:55 ok, trackbot 14:02:56 Meeting: Timed Text Working Group Teleconference 14:02:56 Date: 11 May 2017 14:03:11 Present+ dae 14:04:52 Present+ Glenn, Nigel, Andreas, Pierre 14:04:57 Regrets: Thierry 14:06:36 Regrets+ Mike 14:06:41 scribe: nigel 14:06:43 Chair: Nigel 14:06:46 Topic: This meeting 14:07:31 Present+ David_Ronca 14:09:08 Nigel: [goes through agenda points]. Any other business or specific points to raise? 14:09:20 Pierre: Deprioritise TPAC for this meeting, prioritise TTML issues. 14:10:48 group: [no other business to raise] 14:11:00 Nigel: Okay, in that case I think we can skip TPAC today unless anyone has any 14:11:09 .. urgent changes to the survey responses listed in the agenda. 14:11:44 Topic: TTML issue assignment and progress tracking. 14:11:54 Nigel: Can we timebox this to 15 minutes maximum? 14:12:32 David has joined #tt 14:12:50 Nigel: Are there any issues anyone wants to discuss prior to taking on? 14:13:10 Pierre: I plan to start on TTML1 issues. 14:13:21 Nigel: Do you want to raise any specific issues to work on, or deal with them offline? 14:13:56 Pierre: They're ones that I have already discussed, no need to discuss them further 14:13:58 .. now. 14:14:19 Dae: Does anyone think any of the unassigned TTML2 issues need to be resolved 14:14:23 .. before wide review? 14:14:26 Pierre: All of them. 14:14:43 David_Ronca: Here's an example - a comment about moving Ruby into elements. 14:15:00 Dae: Or #259, which is an editorial assigned, so it might not need to be resolved 14:15:07 .. before wide review. 14:15:17 Pierre: If they're editorial then we should just deal with them. If they need to be 14:15:31 .. deferred we can do that now. Fixing the document later will be more expensive. 14:16:51 atai has joined #tt 14:17:16 q+ 14:17:53 ack atai 14:19:00 David_Ronca: At this point I think we're trying to target a June 30 WR. To reinforce 14:19:16 .. Pierre's point why can't we just resolve these issues? If they can be resolved they 14:19:25 .. should be resolved. We should try to make WR as clean as possible in the next 14:19:29 .. month and a half. 14:20:05 Andreas: I also reviewed 50-60% of the issues - there are a lot so June is ambitious. 14:20:08 q+ 14:20:20 .. In general I agree with Pierre and David that the HR comments on i18n should be 14:20:32 .. dealt with. I think that any review feedback has to be given high priority in general. 14:20:43 .. If you look at Richard's comments he read the spec very carefully and made some 14:21:02 .. comments so I think we should put the effort in to find a solution that the reviewer 14:21:17 .. is fine with. Apart from that, a lot of Richard's comments were about Ruby and 14:21:31 .. some quite complex issues introduced in TTML2 and from my view it certainly 14:21:38 .. needs Glenn's involvement on those. 14:21:41 ack dae 14:21:55 Dae: I looked at all the open unassigned issues and took the ones I thought I could 14:22:17 .. take care of or could resolve before WR. I thought #259 was not critical or I could 14:23:02 .. not handle it. If everyone else took the same approach then we can assume that 14:23:47 .. all the unassigned issues are those that nobody can resolve. 14:23:58 Nigel: No, please do not assign yourself all the issues you might be able to handle, 14:24:23 .. because that just blocks others from taking them on. Assign yourself an issue if 14:24:28 .. you're about to work on it. 14:24:42 Dae: Well #259 may be deferrable. 14:24:57 Pierre: I'd like more time to prepare before deciding to defer any issues. 14:25:11 Glenn: I think we should move to considering issues. As to #259, which is a question, 14:25:22 .. we can simply respond to the question (and say yes) and close the issue. 14:25:32 .. I am qualified to deal with all open issues, but my time is limited so I have to 14:25:44 .. prioritise. I agree that if we can resolve all HR comments then we should without 14:25:54 .. it delaying our proposed schedule, but at some point we may need to push things 14:26:02 .. back. It's too early to make a general policy about this. 14:26:24 Nigel: My original question is: Are there any issues that anyone is considering picking 14:26:36 .. up but wants to discuss? 14:26:40 Pierre: Not for me. 14:27:06 Glenn: I can pull my name off issues that I'm not working on right at the moment. 14:27:10 Nigel: That would be helpful. 14:27:19 Glenn: It was not my intention to prevent anyone else from working on them. 14:27:21 Nigel: Thank you. 14:28:01 Topic: TTML1 & TTML2 issues, actions, PRs, editorial actions etc 14:28:44 Nigel: Thank you Pierre for sending that additional list of issues. How we close issues 14:28:56 .. is we address them with pull requests, so I would like to review the open ones 14:29:07 .. first, to see if we have consensus to merge, and then look at the issues next. 14:29:16 .. By the way Pierre's list was on top of the list that was already in the agenda. 14:29:52 .. There are no open pull requests on TTML1. 14:29:58 .. There are 2 on TTML2. 14:30:15 .. They are both related to #271: 14:30:52 -> https://github.com/w3c/ttml2/issues/271 Metadata examples do not include xml:lang (editorial) 14:31:10 Nigel: Due to comments on Pierre's initial pull request, I proposed an alternate 14:31:50 .. resolution in 14:32:01 -> https://github.com/w3c/ttml2/issues/307 Issue 0271 xml lang metadata examples take 2 14:32:23 q+ 14:33:59 Glenn: I think this is best resolved simply by adding a note to ttm:item to say that 14:34:09 .. xml:lang can be used and doing nothing. The problem with the new proposed 14:34:20 .. examples is that they are not in the language section. Or we could put a new note 14:34:51 .. or section in §8.2.8 xml:lang, where it is already stated that you can put it on 14:34:59 .. metadata vocabulary as a subset of core vocabulary. 14:36:02 .. Putting a small note in §14.1.6 ttm:item isn't necessary because it is explicitly 14:36:05 .. permitted in the syntax. 14:36:13 .. I don't know if we need to add anything. 14:36:22 q+ 14:36:46 Pierre: I'm fairly certain that this is already done in the text, so the question is how 14:36:48 .. we can resolve it. 14:37:01 Andreas: We need to consider that this comes from i18n (Addison) so naturally they 14:37:39 .. are looking at that point and their comment indicates that the labelling with 14:37:52 .. languages of text and content is insufficient and should be given higher priority. 14:38:07 .. So regardless of whether it is actually the core thing being talked about in the document 14:38:18 .. it should be there. Although it is optional it is better to give readers clearer signals 14:38:33 .. to add this information, while on the content element it is clearer, for the metadata 14:38:44 .. it is not that clear and it does not hurt to add that extra information. To deal with 14:38:53 .. this comment it would be good to add this simple example. 14:39:07 Glenn: There's a very simple reason, which is that it pollutes the example. The 14:39:19 .. examples do not need to be complete. We don't have any reason to add a lang 14:39:31 .. tag to the example. If it helps the reader we can add a note to say it could be 14:39:35 .. placed there if desired. 14:39:56 Pierre: I'm sympathetic to that argument, but in this case it is being responsive 14:40:05 +1 14:40:06 .. without negatively impacting the document. 14:41:40 Nigel: My comment https://github.com/w3c/ttml2/pull/301#issuecomment-298730418 14:42:11 .. was to add both a note and the examples, and that got a +1 from the issue 14:42:30 .. raiser Richard. I can add a note to the PR if that helps. 14:43:13 Glenn: I will add a note to the pull request explaining what my concern would be. 14:43:15 Nigel: Thank you. 14:44:07 Nigel: Does that mean that we have consensus to close with regrets Pierre's original 14:44:11 .. pull request #301? 14:44:14 Glenn: Sounds good to me. 14:44:36 Nigel: Is everyone else happy to go with the pull request that adds a note and a separate 14:44:38 .. example? 14:44:45 group: [silence] 14:44:51 Nigel: I'll take that as assent. 14:45:39 Nigel are you on audio? 14:46:24 glenn has joined #tt 14:47:19 pal has joined #tt 14:50:15 topic: #268 14:50:26 glenn: CSS3 does not support 'auto' 14:50:56 Group decides to mark as works for me and close without action. CSS3 WM does not support an 'auto' value. 14:51:45 consensus: WG believes it is not a requirement for TTML2. Close as Works For Me. 14:55:46 topic: #263 14:56:15 consensus: problem stated by commenter is already addressed. Closes as Works for Me. 14:57:29 topic #253 14:57:52 no objection from the WG to resolution as-is 15:02:01 topic: #141 15:02:07 defer until Nigel attends 15:02:18 topic: #128 15:02:24 defer until Nigel attends 15:02:34 topic: #274 15:04:18 AI: Dae to bug Richard Ishida and Glenn Adams 15:06:01 nigel has joined #tt 15:06:17 topic: #189 15:06:39 need an assignee 15:06:58 glenn: very complex to specify. suggest deferring. 15:07:44 atai: new feature request. agree with glenn. 15:09:54 Nigel: Apologies for the large outage from me, problems here. 15:09:59 Pierre: #141 15:10:10 -> https://github.com/w3c/ttml2/issues/141 Embedded graphics don't fully meet requirement 15:10:36 Pierre: Nigel do you agree that the requirement is wrong? 15:10:47 Nigel: I don't see how it is possible to guarantee that any text present is the correct 15:11:44 .. text. You can require some text to be present syntactically or semantically but 15:11:51 .. the requirement as it's stated goes too far. 15:12:00 Glenn: Authorial requirements are not supposed to be covered. 15:12:08 Nigel: I agree it looks like an authorial requirement. 15:12:49 Pierre: So that cannot be specified. 15:12:56 Nigel: So the action is to fix the requirement? 15:13:14 Pierre: I'm concerned about spending any time revising those decade old requirements. 15:14:26 Nigel: I don't have a problem making a point edit to the requirements and 15:14:30 .. revising the spec to match. 15:14:44 Glenn: I would propose to add a note to Annex M to say that those requirements 15:14:47 .. are not being updated. 15:14:59 Pierre: I see a hard time updating the group note on requirements because that will 15:15:04 .. require review at least by me. 15:15:34 Nigel: are you saying we don't need a requirements doc? 15:15:48 Pierre: No it would have been great to revisit those requirements, but now we have 15:16:02 .. a choice to reopen requirements and go down that path, or just say the document 15:16:11 .. is historical and not necessarily accurate and just move on. 15:18:10 Nigel: I certainly did check back on the requirements probably back in 2015, and am 15:18:22 .. fairly confident that they are mostly correct and relevant. 15:18:34 .. Is the action now to mark up the annex for this requirement to say that although 15:18:53 .. it is not met fully, add a note that we do not impose authorial requirements via 15:19:03 .. the specification here, so in that sense the requirement is not correctly formed. 15:19:13 Glenn: That would work for me. I don't think we need to produce an errata document 15:19:16 .. for those requirements. 15:19:18 Pierre: +1 15:19:32 Pierre: Can I assign this to you Nigel? 15:19:35 Nigel: Yes you can! 15:19:36 Pierre: done. 15:19:39 Nigel: Thank you! 15:19:48 Pierre: The next one was #128. 15:20:01 -> https://github.com/w3c/ttml2/issues/128 The uniqueness of xml:id needs to be broken for some uses of condition 15:23:40 Nigel: As far as I'm concerned this is a big issue, with condition not really being 15:24:16 .. usable in the way that a lot of people would want to use it - it could be a really 15:24:40 .. powerful feature that is hobbled at the moment. I want to make sure that a 15:25:04 .. workable pattern is clear so that people can use it successfully. It looks like that 15:25:14 .. needs some changes to the way that the element works. 15:25:17 Glenn: I care about this also. 15:25:23 Pierre: Can I assign this to you Nigel? 15:25:24 Nigel: Yes. 15:25:29 Glenn: I think we need to take this offline. 15:25:35 Nigel: Ok happy to do that. 15:25:53 Pierre: The next is #189 15:26:08 -> https://github.com/w3c/ttml2/issues/189 Add support for adjacent background area merging 15:26:22 Pierre: I think Glenn's position on that is it is very complex to specify, and proposes 15:26:28 .. to defer it. 15:26:36 Glenn: The proposal is to defer to v.next. 15:27:05 Nigel: do we have rounded borders now? 15:27:38 Glenn: This is about background areas, and rounded borders clip them. 15:27:50 Nigel: So we can round backgrounds now? 15:28:04 Glenn: Yes, we can. 15:30:16 Glenn: It is not specified what the border radii apply to, so I think it is implementation 15:30:33 .. dependent which of the first three options in https://github.com/w3c/ttml2/issues/176#issuecomment-246140753 15:30:49 .. is presented, and any of them could be legal. I don't think CSS 3 really helps on 15:30:51 .. this situation either. 15:31:17 Nigel: Okay I need to look at that some more. 15:31:47 .. I would expect the background on the span to be the thing subject to the border 15:31:56 .. rounding, so the first example would be what is expected. 15:32:03 Glenn: I wouldn't disagree that may be the case. 15:32:29 Nigel: One option would be just to remove border-radii - does anyone need it? 15:33:02 Andreas: What is the problem in keeping it? 15:33:56 Glenn: One resolution of this would be to add two examples, with the behaviours 15:34:06 +1 15:34:08 .. with respect to p and span in TTML2. That would be fine with me, and then if 15:34:19 .. we want TTML.next then merging background areas could be a follow-on step. 15:34:56 Nigel: At least the examples will help authors understand what they will get, so if 15:35:04 .. they don't want it then I guess they'll have to lump it. 15:35:11 Glenn: Would you be prepared to create a PR for this Nigel? 15:35:14 Nigel: Yes that's fine. 15:36:38 Nigel: I've added a note to #189. 15:36:46 Glenn: I've assigned it to you Nigel. 15:37:02 Pierre: That completes everything we had on the back-burner. 15:38:39 Nigel: Okay thanks for going through those issues while I was off the audio call. 15:39:01 .. Now how about #224 and #235? 15:39:11 -> https://github.com/w3c/imsc/issues/224 15:39:17 -> https://github.com/w3c/ttml1/issues/235 15:40:44 Nigel: Sorry for the confusion, let's look at TTML1 #235. 15:41:35 Pierre: I think in TTML1 the processing is unambiguous so some tabs are kept and 15:41:45 .. there's no definition for what they look like. We could recommend that they look 15:41:56 .. like something, and recommend authors don't use it, but we can't do much more. 15:42:09 Glenn: I've pinged Steve and Tony and they haven't responded. So my understanding 15:42:32 .. is that we're talking about what happens with tabs when xml:space="default" and 15:42:41 .. there's a horizontal tab at the beginning of a line. 15:43:06 .. Regardless of xml:space the presentation semantics of tab are not defined in TTML 15:43:31 .. - for xml:space="default" it's not clear from XSL-FO if that's mapped to space 15:43:45 .. during the refinement process or not. There are two technical questions, one about 15:44:01 .. the refinement process and the second is if it is not mapped to space then what 15:44:10 .. does it mean for presentation. I agree with Pierre's comment that we should 15:44:27 .. recommend that author's should not use a tab in any case, regardless of xml:space. 15:44:41 Pierre: Yes. and if we want to be helpful, we could recommend that processors turn 15:44:57 .. tabs into spaces which would lead to what most people expect I think, in TTML1. 15:45:19 Glenn: "A preferred way for implementations to handle this is blah blah". 15:45:23 Pierre: That would work for me. 15:45:57 Andreas: I think the handling of xml:space is specified in XSL-FO but the base spec 15:46:08 .. that defines it is the XML standard itself. Whatever we do it needs to be inline with 15:46:11 .. what the XML standard says. 15:46:28 Pierre: Would it be inconsistent with XML to recommend weakly that implementations 15:46:33 .. treat tab as space? 15:46:44 Glenn: This is not to do with the XML spec, perhaps the XSL-FO spec, but my position 15:46:50 .. is that XSL-FO is ambiguous on this. 15:46:58 Andreas: I will double check that. 15:47:11 .. If there is an issue I will comment on the proposed wording. 15:48:01 Pierre: Glenn, should we open a pull request for TTML1? 15:48:11 Glenn: I would suggest opening a pull request with a proposed note. I will do that. 15:48:28 Pierre: I might suggest that in IMSC 1.0.1 we add a note pointing to this note in 15:48:32 .. TTML1. 15:48:41 Nigel: OK now what about TTML2? 15:49:18 .. I think the easiest proposal is to say that a tab character has no presentation effect 15:49:26 .. whatsoever. 15:49:35 Glenn: For TTML2 I would take the TTML1 note and make it normative. 15:49:48 Andreas: Another useful resource for clues about intended behaviour is to look at 15:50:04 .. XSLT (or maybe XPATH), which was part of XSL-FO a long time ago. 15:50:20 .. As far as I can remember if there's no xml:space="preserve" the default behaviour 15:50:29 .. is to normalise tabs to spaces. 15:50:43 Glenn: XSLT is not formally part of XSL-FO, so the focus should be on what XSL-FO 15:50:55 .. does. If we have time it might be worth looking at what FOP and Antenna House 15:51:02 .. does, but we don't have to do the same as them. 15:51:16 Pierre: What does CSS do with presentation of tabs? 15:51:35 Glenn: That's more complicated. After CSS2.1 and later it maps a tab to tabstops that 15:52:07 .. are nominally 8 spaces across. So "xxx[tab]y" means the "y" appears 8 spaces across. 15:52:13 .. I don't think we want to adopt the CSS behaviour. 15:52:27 Nigel: Can we adopt my proposal that a tab has no presentation effect at all? 15:52:43 Glenn: I would prefer to map to a single space rather than nothing, for security 15:52:57 .. reasons, Invisible content can be used for phishing etc. as a general principle. 15:53:17 .. For example you can create URLs with invisible character in them which mislead 15:53:23 .. the browser user. 15:53:35 Nigel: Okay, mapping a tab to a single space would work for me. 15:53:43 Glenn: That would be my default proposal for presenting a tab. 15:54:08 Pierre: I think we should start there and I'll review. 15:54:31 Nigel: This needs a new TTML2 issue. 15:54:56 Glenn: I consider it part of #302. That's supposed to incorporate further changes 15:54:59 .. between TTML1 and TTML2. 15:55:54 Nigel: I think this sufficiently different from the TTML1 issue that it needs a new TTML2 issue. 15:56:09 Nigel: I will add a note to the TTML1 issue that is currently assigned to Glenn, #235. 15:56:25 See https://www.w3.org/TR/CSS2/text.html#white-space-model for CSS2.1 tab handling rules. 15:57:18 Nigel: I'd like to move to the Audio Description requirements. Pierre, you made the 15:57:34 .. point that we as a group have not been through those requirements. 15:57:53 Pierre: I wasn't at the Web and TV IG/TTWG joint meeting. I don't really have an 15:58:32 .. issue with the requirements but in the context of distribution I would like to review 15:58:35 .. that face to face. 15:59:12 Nigel: OK that sounds like a discussion of a distribution profile for AD, which I'd be 15:59:29 .. happy to add to the agenda at TPAC, but I would also like to continue with the 15:59:33 .. existing TTML2 work. 16:01:47 Glenn: How I've been drafting it is a neutral addition to the existing semantics around 16:01:58 .. audio inclusion in TTML2 - I have not mentioned audio description explicitly. 16:02:19 Nigel: We're out of time for today, and I see that the audio call has dropped off for 16:02:49 .. some reason too, so let's adjourn until next week. [adjourns meeting] 16:02:53 rrsagent, make minutes 16:02:53 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/05/11-tt-minutes.html nigel 16:13:09 scribe+ pal 16:13:11 rrsagent, make minutes 16:13:11 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/05/11-tt-minutes.html nigel 16:13:32 atai has left #tt 16:14:15 s/scribe+ pal/ 16:14:19 rrsagent, make minutes 16:14:19 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/05/11-tt-minutes.html nigel 16:14:42 ScribeOptions: -final -noEmbedDiagnostics 16:14:43 rrsagent, make minutes 16:14:43 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/05/11-tt-minutes.html nigel 17:01:44 Zakim has left #tt