IRC log of tt on 2017-06-29

Timestamps are in UTC.

13:59:15 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #tt
13:59:15 [RRSAgent]
logging to http://www.w3.org/2017/06/29-tt-irc
13:59:17 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs public
13:59:17 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #tt
13:59:19 [trackbot]
Zakim, this will be TTML
13:59:19 [Zakim]
ok, trackbot
13:59:20 [trackbot]
Meeting: Timed Text Working Group Teleconference
13:59:20 [trackbot]
Date: 29 June 2017
13:59:25 [nigel]
Present: David, Nigel
13:59:31 [nigel]
Chair: Nigel, David
14:00:13 [nigel]
Regrets: Glenn
14:00:16 [nigel]
scribe: nigel
14:03:08 [nigel]
Present+ Pierre
14:03:09 [dsinger_]
dsinger_ has joined #tt
14:03:30 [nigel]
s/David/Dave_Singer
14:04:23 [tmichel]
tmichel has joined #tt
14:05:50 [nigel]
Present+ Thierry
14:06:47 [nigel]
Present+ Dae
14:07:22 [dae]
dae has joined #tt
14:08:19 [nigel]
Topic: This meeting
14:08:55 [nigel]
Nigel: Today we have an agenda item on WebVTT that Dave will take at the top of the meeting,
14:09:22 [nigel]
.. then IMSC and TTML. We may be about to request publication of three specifications
14:09:28 [nigel]
.. all at once, at different levels of transition.
14:09:59 [nigel]
.. We should also cover TPAC briefly if time allows.
14:10:24 [nigel]
.. There's been a bit of progress on HDR in PNG too. Any other business?
14:10:36 [nigel]
group: [silence]
14:10:42 [nigel]
Topic: WebVTT
14:11:05 [nigel]
Dave: We haven't talked about the WebVTT spec for a long time on a call. I wanted to
14:11:22 [nigel]
.. bring you up to speed. Firstly an apology we haven't been publishing WDs, as I didn't
14:11:35 [dsinger_]
https://w3c.github.io/webvtt/
14:11:48 [nigel]
Dave: realise we don't need permission to publish. Unless anyone wants to object then
14:12:16 [nigel]
.. we would like to publish the above as a new WD.
14:12:24 [nigel]
Nigel: For wide review?
14:12:35 [nigel]
Dave: Let's come to that. Initially just a heartbeat publication.
14:12:50 [dsinger_]
https://www.w3.org/wiki/WebVTT_Wide_Review
14:12:50 [nigel]
.. 2 years ago we requested wide review, and received a load of comments. We finally
14:13:06 [nigel]
.. reached resolution of all the issues raised. I asked the CG to check once more on the
14:13:15 [pal]
pal has joined #tt
14:13:25 [nigel]
.. disposition of all these bugs. Thierry has helped to build the table of all these issues,
14:13:32 [nigel]
.. including links to the issues and the dispositions.
14:13:49 [nigel]
.. The WG status says @@ on every issue. At the bottom we see the key for WG status
14:14:03 [nigel]
.. to be filled in. I would like to see status 1 CG disposition agreed by WG.
14:14:25 [nigel]
s/1/3.1
14:14:40 [nigel]
.. I would like the WG to indicate in the next couple of weeks if the disposition is okay
14:15:27 [nigel]
.. or if more needs to be done, and let me know.
14:15:29 [dsinger_]
By mid-June I would like to know how the WG feels on the disposition of each of these
14:15:46 [dsinger_]
Thierry and I will be verifying the commenters' reactions to each of them
14:16:02 [dsinger_]
The test suite was recently improved
14:17:00 [nigel]
Dave: I hope that by the middle of the month we have a new WD, agreed dispositions
14:17:30 [nigel]
.. and a test suite report, and then to publish the CR. I'd like to be at CR by TPAC.
14:17:46 [nigel]
.. Then we will discuss if we will have to remove features to move to Rec. Now with the
14:17:59 [nigel]
.. test suite and the spec dealt with... Oh one more request, look at the GitHub issues
14:18:12 [nigel]
.. that were not wide review and say if there are any there that need to be fixed. I didn't
14:18:24 [nigel]
.. think myself that any urgently need to be addressed but you may disagree.
14:18:51 [nigel]
Nigel: Is there a requirements doc for WebVTT that we can review against?
14:19:08 [nigel]
Dave: I don't think there was ever a formal requirements document. We took it on as a
14:19:41 [nigel]
.. working document from WHATWG, historically.
14:20:29 [nigel]
Thierry: I'd like to understand a bit more, because it's not clear to me exactly what are
14:20:42 [nigel]
.. the milestones. We are planning to publish on /TR a new WD, that I understood.
14:20:56 [nigel]
.. Then in parallel we are asking the TTWG to review the comments that were sent and
14:21:10 [nigel]
.. the proposals. I don't see what the TTWG could say now if it's been approved by the CG
14:21:28 [nigel]
.. and by the commenter, what could the WG bring? Then are we going to trigger a new
14:21:41 [nigel]
.. Wide Review before going to CR? The WR was 2 years ago and there have been
14:21:46 [nigel]
.. substantive changes since then.
14:21:58 [dsinger_]
Push new WD now; review the disposition of the last round of wide review comments [2 weeks]; then we'll do another (briefer) wide review;
14:22:01 [nigel]
Dave: Yes push a WD now, review the disposition at WG level over a couple of weeks
14:22:14 [nigel]
.. if that is enough, then another WR request, and hopefully fewer comments will arrive,
14:22:25 [nigel]
.. and by then we will have a test report and I'm hoping we can deal with any comments
14:22:29 [nigel]
.. and then move to CR pretty rapidly.
14:22:43 [nigel]
Thierry: We don't need tests to get into CR. It's good if we do but it's not a requirement.
14:22:58 [nigel]
Dave: I don't want to enter CR without the test suite being reasonably complete and working.
14:23:31 [nigel]
Nigel: Have all the dispositions gone back to the commenter?
14:23:43 [nigel]
Dave: They have all been worked through in dialog with the commenter.
14:23:58 [nigel]
.. Nonetheless someone here might notice something we haven't noticed. Formally the
14:24:10 [nigel]
.. WG needs the opportunity to say if the disposition is not good enough. I don't want
14:24:14 [nigel]
.. to short-circuit the WG here.
14:25:11 [nigel]
Nigel: There was a question about how long we need to review. Is 2 weeks enough?
14:25:22 [dsinger_]
https://www.w3.org/wiki/WebVTT_Wide_Review
14:25:28 [dsinger_]
https://w3c.github.io/webvtt/
14:26:04 [nigel]
Thierry: Another issue: why are we publishing a WD in a few days and then waiting
14:26:22 [nigel]
.. 2 weeks or so for the WG to respond? Why not directly publish a WR document?
14:26:37 [nigel]
Dave: We could get WR on this WD if you like, and do them in parallel.
14:26:45 [nigel]
Thierry: I don't see the difference actually.
14:27:05 [nigel]
Dave: Yes let's parallelise it, if you can help publish the WR requests Thierry.
14:27:19 [nigel]
Thierry: Okay, if the TTWG publishes this as a WR we need to agree a review period by
14:27:25 [nigel]
.. the public.
14:27:33 [nigel]
Dave: Yes, what's typical?
14:27:56 [nigel]
Thierry: I think at least 4 weeks, given it's summer.
14:28:09 [nigel]
Dave: I'd be happy with end of July assuming we publish the WD in the next day or two.
14:28:16 [nigel]
.. OK?
14:28:34 [nigel]
.. Thierry if you could help with this that would be helpful.
14:28:50 [nigel]
Thierry: I tried yesterday but it uses Bikeshed and I don't know how that works - I spent
14:29:08 [nigel]
.. 4 hours yesterday trying to understand it and I still could not achieve it. I need to go
14:29:22 [nigel]
.. through the usual former publication process by the WebMaster unless Philippe can
14:29:25 [nigel]
.. give me some help.
14:29:30 [nigel]
Dave: Silvia might be able to help.
14:29:42 [nigel]
Thierry: Bikeshed is typically used in CSS WG and not many other groups.
14:29:45 [dsinger_]
Silvia and/or Philippe (or the CSS folks) can probably help. Bikeshed is widely used, I think
14:30:00 [nigel]
Nigel: So it's going to be 4 weeks post-publication?
14:30:08 [nigel]
Thierry: That's the minimum especially in summer.
14:30:11 [nigel]
Nigel: Do you want longer?
14:30:19 [nigel]
Thierry: I'm saying it's the minimum.
14:30:46 [nigel]
Dave: It's the second round and all the changes have been as a result of the previous
14:30:50 [nigel]
.. round of wide review.
14:31:05 [nigel]
Thierry: I think what we should do is restrict the wide review to the new features that
14:31:16 [nigel]
.. were added, so I don't know if we have a list of substantive changes that were done.
14:31:20 [nigel]
Dave: That's a good point.
14:31:32 [nigel]
Thierry: You can ask in the review to review only the delta.
14:31:42 [nigel]
Dave: Yes, I will work with the Editors on working out what that list is.
14:31:56 [nigel]
Regrets+ Andreas
14:32:15 [nigel]
Dave: If you can help me work out the differences Thierry I will do that.
14:32:21 [nigel]
Thierry: It says that on the wiki page.
14:32:26 [dsinger_]
previous Wide Review was https://www.w3.org/TR/2014/WD-webvtt1-20141113/
14:33:11 [nigel]
Dave: I'll do a review and indicate the significant changes since then.
14:34:27 [nigel]
.. Sounds like a plan - we'll push the WD, analyse the differences, get the WG dispositions agreed.
14:34:38 [nigel]
Nigel: We need the deltas for the WD for WR, which normally go in the SOTD.
14:34:51 [nigel]
Thierry: So we do a standard WD publication in the next few days, then a WR WD when
14:34:54 [nigel]
.. we have that ready.
14:34:56 [nigel]
Dave: Ok
14:35:17 [nigel]
Thierry: I will work with Philippe to publish the current version as the new WD and if I
14:35:24 [nigel]
.. can't do that I will ask the WebMaster to do it on Tuesday.
14:35:28 [nigel]
Dave: Ok, thanks.
14:36:21 [nigel]
.. Thanks for getting the details of exactly what we need to do. Thierry please help
14:36:30 [nigel]
.. to make sure we don't drop any of these.
14:36:35 [nigel]
.. Thanks everyone, [drops off]
14:37:09 [nigel]
Topic: IMSC
14:37:15 [nigel]
action-498?
14:37:15 [trackbot]
action-498 -- Nigel Megitt to Invite i18n to discuss imsc 1.0.1 issues -- due 2017-06-15 -- PENDINGREVIEW
14:37:15 [trackbot]
http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/tracker/actions/498
14:37:43 [nigel]
Nigel: Huge apologies for this dropping off my radar, but I entirely failed to do it.
14:38:02 [nigel]
.. I mean to ping them again after last week's meeting. The original invitation was sent.
14:38:23 [nigel]
.. Obviously Richard and Addison were pinged on the GitHub issues in any case.
14:38:45 [nigel]
.. For now I want to close the action since they did not respond.
14:38:48 [nigel]
close action-498
14:38:48 [trackbot]
Closed action-498.
14:39:24 [nigel]
Nigel: In terms of the timeline Pierre, you have closed the issues where we said we
14:39:34 [nigel]
.. would do so after a deadline.
14:39:49 [nigel]
Pierre: There are two ARIB WR issues that can't be closed until tomorrow unfortunately.
14:40:14 [nigel]
Nigel: We haven't seen anything from ARIB - Thierry?
14:40:25 [nigel]
Thierry: No that's correct. If we don't get anything by tomorrow I propose to close the issue.
14:40:33 [nigel]
Pierre: The issues that remain are:
14:41:01 [nigel]
-> https://github.com/w3c/imsc/issues/244 Add diff from IMSC 1.0.0 and update substantive-changes-summary.txt
14:41:19 [nigel]
Pierre: I can't do that until #227 and #228 are closed tomorrow, so I will have a draft ready for publication on Monday.
14:41:36 [nigel]
Nigel: Right now I think it's quite unlikely we will get a response in time, but it's possible.
14:42:08 [nigel]
.. Is it worth preparing #244 in anticipation of no more changes.
14:42:12 [nigel]
s/s./s?
14:42:25 [nigel]
Pierre: I was going to do that over the weekend so it would be available to Thierry on Monday.
14:42:59 [nigel]
.. The only outstanding point without an issue is what we do with the schemas.
14:43:12 [nigel]
.. We have dealt with it for IMSC1 but we need to agree how we are going to publish
14:43:15 [nigel]
.. XSDs going forward.
14:44:00 [nigel]
Nigel: It's good to raise that. I put forward one view, but it may be too much change for some people.
14:44:16 [nigel]
Pierre: The goal is to reference the XSDs from the spec in a way that can be referenced
14:44:22 [nigel]
.. and updated by group Consensus, right?
14:44:28 [nigel]
Thierry: I agree.
14:44:31 [nigel]
Nigel: I agree too.
14:44:42 [nigel]
Thierry: If the schemas were normative we would have no choice, but since they are
14:44:52 [nigel]
.. not normative we can publish them anywhere. There are no restrictions or guidelines.
14:45:07 [nigel]
.. In the past we published them on the W3C site at some URI but now people are using
14:45:25 [nigel]
.. GitHub. I'm fine with either proposal. I don't think GitHub is very friendly. I prefer a
14:45:39 [nigel]
.. page that directly shows up in my browser but that's really personal. I think w3.org
14:45:50 [nigel]
.. is a more stable URI because we don't know what will happen with GitHub one day.
14:46:59 [nigel]
Nigel: You can download that on GitHub directly.
14:47:04 [nigel]
Thierry: Yes but its hard to find.
14:47:17 [nigel]
Pierre: My main concern with GitHub is that anyone can change the tags, so I would rather
14:47:29 [nigel]
.. have a more formal publication step on the W3C site.
14:48:25 [nigel]
Nigel: I don't mind either option. Would we publish a wrapper page or would the URL
14:48:29 [nigel]
.. just point to a directory?
14:49:16 [nigel]
Thierry: It would be like IMSC 1 with a wrapper.
14:49:31 [nigel]
Nigel: If its a wrapper then we can do both, since it will always be on GitHub anyway.
14:49:47 [nigel]
.. Then people who find GitHub easier can use that, or people who prefer the direct download
14:49:52 [nigel]
.. can get it from a W3C resource.
14:50:06 [nigel]
Pierre: I would be having them in a GitHub repo with a tagged release anyway.
14:50:28 [nigel]
Thierry: Would you prefer separate downloads or a ZIP to be downloadable?
14:50:44 [nigel]
Pierre: Right now we have a wrapper page? I would do exactly the same and what I would
14:51:01 [nigel]
.. need from Thierry is that W3C page so I can put the XSD in the doc.
14:51:37 [tmichel]
I propose to host those schemas at
14:51:37 [tmichel]
https://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/IMSC/ttml-imsc1.0.1/xml-schemas/
14:53:33 [pal]
the same as https://www.w3.org/TR/2017/WD-ttml-imsc1.0.1-20170322/xml-schemas/
14:54:07 [nigel]
Nigel: I thought that was a directory listing but I see it's actually a wrapper page.
14:54:47 [nigel]
.. So we can add to that wrapper page a link to the GitHub page with the latest release tag?
14:54:57 [nigel]
Pierre: If they want to go to GitHub then they can just go there.
14:55:07 [nigel]
Nigel: How would they know to do that.
14:55:54 [nigel]
s/t./t?
14:56:15 [nigel]
Pierre: I'm reluctant to point to a specific release tag or path on GitHub because that
14:56:33 [nigel]
.. can change. We can point to the repo, or if you think a ZIP is better we can just put a
14:56:40 [nigel]
.. ZIP there. I'm trying to avoid duplication.
14:56:47 [nigel]
Thierry: Me too, I'd like to avoid that.
14:58:06 [nigel]
Nigel: I don't think it is duplication - or any duplication is from the GitHub repo to the
14:58:22 [nigel]
.. w3 site.
14:59:22 [nigel]
Pierre: By design or mistake it's really easy to change the release tags.
14:59:46 [nigel]
Nigel: I'd like to check maybe with Philippe if we can manage the rights to create or modify
14:59:53 [nigel]
.. release tags, and if we can add it then do so.
15:00:03 [nigel]
Thierry: Anyhow we can modify the page anytime to add new links if we want.
15:00:20 [pal]
https://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/IMSC/ttml-imsc1.0.1/xml-schemas.zip
15:00:32 [nigel]
Pierre: The link now will be slightly different because it will have a URL like the above?
15:00:42 [nigel]
Thierry: I thought we would have a wrapper page and then in that wrapper page we can
15:00:55 [nigel]
.. add a link to GitHub if we want. And we can even add a link to a ZIP file from that
15:00:58 [nigel]
.. wrapper page.
15:01:07 [nigel]
Pierre: Okay that sounds fine to me.
15:01:16 [nigel]
.. I'll add a new issue for moving the XSDs to outside of /TR.
15:01:30 [nigel]
Thierry: You know when we changed the XSD in place I put a comment in the XSD to
15:01:44 [nigel]
.. say that it was changed inplace on June 23 so I propose to remove that for 1.0.1.
15:01:58 [nigel]
.. It was just to explain the change on the Rec home page.
15:02:09 [nigel]
Pierre: Yes, anyway, it's not in the GitHub version.
15:02:15 [nigel]
Thierry: Should I take the GitHub version?
15:02:18 [nigel]
Pierre: Absolutely.
15:02:25 [nigel]
Thierry: OK I'll start from that.
15:03:35 [nigel]
Nigel: Okay I'd like to propose CR publication based on no changes coming from ARIB.
15:03:40 [nigel]
.. Did we set a review deadline?
15:03:45 [nigel]
Pierre: Yes we said August 6.
15:04:20 [nigel]
Thierry: Okay I have prepared a transition request document which I will send to the
15:04:36 [nigel]
.. Director because we don't have any formal objection anymore so I hope we don't need a call.
15:04:50 [nigel]
Nigel: Oh thanks for the reminder - Glenn told me he will not object formally to CR
15:05:00 [nigel]
.. publication as v 1.0.1.
15:06:19 [nigel]
PROPOSAL: Publish IMSC 1.0.1 based on the current ED with request for review by August 6 assuming there are no changes due to comments by ARIB tomorrow and the differences issue is resolved.
15:06:47 [nigel]
Pierre: CR publication for July 6 and end of CR to August 6?
15:06:48 [nigel]
Thierry: Yes.
15:07:02 [nigel]
Pierre: Add diff from IMSC 1 and add substantive changes summary and update the
15:07:05 [nigel]
.. XSD link.
15:07:18 [nigel]
.. These are all captured in #244 and #248 in GitHub.
15:07:42 [nigel]
Nigel: Is there any more work to do on the Disposition of comments for the CR transition request?
15:07:51 [nigel]
Thierry: There are some issues I'm not sure if they are closed or not.
15:07:52 [tmichel]
https://www.w3.org/wiki/IMSC1.0.1_Comments_tracker
15:08:21 [nigel]
Thierry: What remains is the Call for Review to W3C groups - only i18n responded.
15:08:53 [nigel]
.. Nigel if you can provide me with the exact list of external bodies that you sent the
15:08:56 [nigel]
.. calls for review to?
15:09:08 [nigel]
Nigel: They are all in the member-tt archives, if you could get them from there.
15:09:11 [nigel]
Thierry: I will do that.
15:10:11 [nigel]
.. Now the comments themselves: we have only 1 comment from ARIB and we are...
15:10:22 [nigel]
Nigel: Sorry to interrupt, didn't we get a positive comment from DVB?
15:10:30 [nigel]
Thierry: Maybe - if you find it send me the link.
15:10:32 [nigel]
Nigel: Will do.
15:10:56 [nigel]
Thierry: Now we have 3 issues: #236 with no answer from Richard?
15:11:27 [nigel]
Pierre: True, no further communications since 2 weeks ago.
15:11:53 [nigel]
Thierry: Should we close that and say it's done?
15:11:57 [nigel]
Nigel: It's already closed.
15:12:15 [nigel]
Thierry: The next from Richard is done and the last from Addison also closed due to no answer.
15:12:30 [nigel]
.. Then there are 9 comments from WG members. I'm not sure the latest status on some of them.
15:12:44 [nigel]
.. 5 are marked as pending - Pierre, what is the latest status for those?
15:12:55 [nigel]
Pierre: They're all on GitHub right?
15:13:06 [nigel]
Thierry: Yes but it's not clear to me if it was agreed.
15:13:41 [nigel]
Pierre: #221 the commenter never agreed.
15:13:55 [nigel]
.. I think it resolves the comment.
15:14:06 [nigel]
Thierry: So there's no response from the commenter?
15:14:12 [nigel]
Pierre: Correct, nobody disagreed.
15:14:31 [nigel]
Thierry: okay that one is "no response, closed".
15:14:39 [nigel]
.. Then we have #223.
15:15:08 [nigel]
Pierre: This was just a question.
15:15:14 [nigel]
Nigel: And the person who asked it closed the issue.
15:15:19 [nigel]
Thierry: Ok that's closed.
15:15:23 [nigel]
.. Now #228?
15:15:49 [nigel]
Pierre: That's one from ARIB.
15:16:06 [nigel]
Thierry: OK I understand now. I've been tracking it in the archives only.
15:16:20 [nigel]
.. Then #232 and #242.
15:16:30 [nigel]
Pierre: #232 was my comment and I'm happy with the resolution.
15:16:32 [nigel]
Thierry: Thank you.
15:16:59 [nigel]
.. Then we have #234.
15:17:26 [nigel]
Pierre: Andreas created it and it is part of the solution to #233.
15:19:03 [nigel]
Nigel: Andreas proposed the pull request to resolve #233. #234 was merged.
15:19:42 [nigel]
.. Since the original issue was #233 that was raised by Andreas I think we can conclude
15:19:45 [nigel]
.. that he was happy with it.
15:20:17 [nigel]
Thierry: Ok, the next is #238.
15:20:22 [nigel]
Pierre: That was closed by the commenter.
15:20:30 [nigel]
Thierry: Ok, the last one is #240.
15:20:48 [nigel]
Pierre: that was mine, and I'm happy with it.
15:20:59 [nigel]
Thierry: Okay I will finish the disposition of comments today so that we are ready and
15:21:11 [nigel]
.. then I'll send the transition request on Monday because I need to have the CR version
15:21:14 [nigel]
.. document. Okay?
15:21:38 [nigel]
Nigel: Please could you send me the updated draft transition request before you raise it?
15:21:52 [nigel]
Thierry: I'll send it to you on Monday because I need the final details, and I have to remove
15:21:58 [nigel]
.. the placeholder for the formal objection.
15:22:39 [nigel]
Nigel: My diary is okay on Monday so I should be able to scan it and return it fairly quickly.
15:23:09 [nigel]
rrsagent, make minutes
15:23:09 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/06/29-tt-minutes.html nigel
15:23:46 [nigel]
RESOLUTION: Publish IMSC 1.0.1 based on the current ED with request for review by August 6 assuming there are no changes due to comments by ARIB tomorrow and the differences issue is resolved.
15:24:12 [nigel]
Nigel: Thank you all, is there anything else on IMSC?
15:24:16 [nigel]
group: [silence]
15:24:35 [nigel]
Topic: TTML
15:24:57 [nigel]
Nigel: Our goal here is to publish the current ED as a WD for Wide Review.
15:25:33 [nigel]
.. Current status: We have been discussing ttp:mediaOffset offline, and there are no comments on the open pull request, to complete #195.
15:25:56 [nigel]
s/are no comments/is one comment
15:26:33 [nigel]
Nigel: #396 is the audio related features pull request and I just asked for the features
15:26:47 [nigel]
.. to be added to profiles where they are currently omitted, for completeness.
15:27:07 [nigel]
Nigel: I don't know why Glenn hasn't responded to that comment, or done it - anyway
15:27:09 [nigel]
.. I can do it.
15:31:38 [nigel]
Nigel: On the mediaOffset issue #323 I don't want to hold back WR publication - I guess
15:31:54 [nigel]
.. we can still remove between WR and CR if there are supporting negative comments.
15:34:17 [nigel]
Pierre: I agree with you Nigel that there's no use case for that feature and it will actually
15:34:32 [nigel]
.. cause harm so I would like to remove it (see the issue!).
15:34:51 [nigel]
.. However given the desire to publish the WD for WR I would not hold up that publication.
15:35:08 [nigel]
.. For the record Movielabs would not object to the publication of the WD for WR as long
15:35:24 [nigel]
.. as the review period is no less than 3 months to give adequate time for review including
15:35:28 [nigel]
.. by groups with long review cycles.
15:37:07 [nigel]
PROPOSAL: Publish a WD for WR of TTML2 based on the current ED, with a review period ending at end of September.
15:37:27 [nigel]
Nigel: I think we can probably add the audio feature designators after WR publication though I would prefer to include them before.
15:38:10 [nigel]
Nigel: In that case the only action will be on Glenn to update the SOTD for the review period
15:38:45 [nigel]
.. and then publish with echidna.
15:38:58 [nigel]
Dae: Can I close the open i18n issues where I haven't had a response yet?
15:39:12 [nigel]
Nigel: No they can stay open until we need to move to CR.
15:39:26 [nigel]
Pierre: You can definitely not close those - we haven't even given a deadline for feedback yet.
15:40:51 [nigel]
Dae: I want to close off the issues that are related to printed publication not to
15:40:53 [nigel]
.. subtitles.
15:41:04 [nigel]
Nigel: What we need to do is go through each issue, for you to propose that disposition,
15:41:18 [nigel]
.. for the group to agree it, and then to go back to the commenter and check they are okay with it.
15:41:21 [nigel]
Dae: Okay sure.
15:41:49 [nigel]
Nigel: For the proposal, I'm hearing no objections?
15:41:56 [nigel]
Dae: Yes, and that keeps us on track for end of 2017.
15:42:20 [nigel]
Nigel: It does if we have implementations so we are confident of moving out of CR quickly.
15:42:24 [nigel]
Dae: Yes.
15:43:33 [nigel]
RESOLUTION: Publish a WD for WR of TTML2 based on the current ED, with a review period ending at end of September, preferably though not necessarily with pull request #396 merged.
15:44:08 [nigel]
Nigel: Anything else to cover now on TTML?
15:44:11 [nigel]
group: [silence]
15:44:25 [nigel]
Topic: TPAC
15:44:29 [nigel]
action-497?
15:44:29 [trackbot]
action-497 -- Nigel Megitt to Invite csswg to joint meeting at tpac 2017, with list of topics. -- due 2017-06-15 -- OPEN
15:44:29 [trackbot]
http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/tracker/actions/497
15:44:44 [nigel]
Nigel: Apologies this has slipped another week - I will get around to this!
15:45:27 [nigel]
Topic: HDR in PNG
15:45:50 [nigel]
Pierre: Some progress here on the PQ HDR in PNG. Adobe has officially released the
15:46:04 [nigel]
.. sample ICC profile for publication by W3C.
15:46:18 [nigel]
.. I never heard back from Chris Lilley so I opened a pull request to try to address his concerns.
15:46:40 [nigel]
.. Also I've heard concerns that this PQ in PNG approach, because PNG is limited to 8 bit
15:47:03 [nigel]
.. or 16 bit, and 8 is not sufficient for general HDR use and 16 is not efficient, so PNG
15:47:21 [nigel]
.. is not suitable for this use case. I've encouraged the concerned party to raise a comment
15:47:30 [nigel]
.. on GitHub as an issue.
15:47:44 [nigel]
.. I think it's a legitimate concern. It means that the scope of the document goes from
15:48:00 [nigel]
.. being general to specifically how do I do PQ in PNG until there's a better solution.
15:48:44 [nigel]
.. The scope of the document will be limited to be just for subtitles and captions.
15:49:12 [nigel]
Nigel: It's a general purpose format so how can you tell people what they can or cannot use it for?
15:49:28 [nigel]
Pierre: The document would say it is appropriate for that use but may not be appropriate
15:49:33 [nigel]
.. for other applications.
15:49:40 [nigel]
Nigel: I see.
15:52:28 [nigel]
Pierre: My plan is, if we get that comment, to address it and maybe in a couple of weeks
15:52:34 [nigel]
.. have something for the group to consider.
15:52:38 [nigel]
Nigel: Thank you!
15:53:05 [nigel]
Pierre: I've also learned yesterday that this is actually in use today - these kinds of PNGs
15:53:16 [nigel]
.. are being exchanged now to address those markets that accept HDR content.
15:53:30 [nigel]
.. Documenting that is a good idea.
15:53:39 [nigel]
Nigel: Are they doing that in the absence of any referrable document?
15:53:50 [nigel]
Pierre: Yes they'd really like a referrable document!
15:54:42 [nigel]
Nigel: Thanks, I think we've covered everything on our agenda. [adjourns meeting]
15:54:48 [nigel]
rrsagent, make minutes
15:54:48 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/06/29-tt-minutes.html nigel
16:12:14 [nigel]
ScribeOptions: -final -noEmbedDiagnostics
16:12:16 [nigel]
rrsagent, make minutes
16:12:16 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/06/29-tt-minutes.html nigel
16:12:18 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #tt
17:16:30 [pal]
pal has joined #tt
20:12:21 [tmichel]
tmichel has joined #tt
21:13:14 [tmichel]
tmichel has joined #tt