IRC log of tt on 2017-09-14

Timestamps are in UTC.

14:00:16 [RRSAgent]

RRSAgent has joined #tt

14:00:16 [RRSAgent]

logging to http://www.w3.org/2017/09/14-tt-irc

14:00:18 [trackbot]

RRSAgent, make logs public

14:00:18 [Zakim]

Zakim has joined #tt

14:00:20 [trackbot]

Meeting: Timed Text Working Group Teleconference

14:00:20 [trackbot]

Date: 14 September 2017

14:01:02 [nigel]

Present: Cyril, Nigel, Glenn

14:01:06 [nigel]

Chair: Nigel

14:01:21 [nigel]

scribe: nigel

14:01:21 [tmichel]

tmichel has joined #tt

14:01:27 [nigel]

Regrets: None

14:02:44 [nigel]

Present+ Thierry

14:04:41 [nigel]

Present+ Mike, Andreas, Pierre

14:04:49 [nigel]

Topic: This meeting

14:05:06 [nigel]

Nigel: First, welcome Cyril, who has joined this group (again), now representing Netflix.

14:05:07 [mike]

mike has joined #tt

14:05:55 [nigel]

.. For today, we have TPAC agenda, TTML2 CSS mapping semantics, TTML2 WR comment disposition process.

14:06:00 [nigel]

.. Any more?

14:06:17 [nigel]

Thierry: For WebVTT, just to note that the Editor, Simon, has stepped down, so we are

14:06:28 [nigel]

.. lacking an editor.

14:06:49 [nigel]

Nigel: I had the impression that Sylvia had offered to be a second Editor - is that not correct?

14:07:01 [nigel]

Thierry: She used to be an Editor, I'm not sure if she will come back to that former task.

14:07:35 [nigel]

.. Also just a small reminder for people to register for TPAC if not done, and of course to

14:07:44 [nigel]

.. invite new people like Cyril to join the face to face at TPAC.

14:07:54 [nigel]

Cyril: I plan to attend!

14:08:14 [nigel]

Topic: TPAC Agenda Planning

14:08:34 [nigel]

-> https://www.w3.org/wiki/TimedText/tpac2017 Our TPAC 2017 wiki page

14:09:05 [nigel]

Nigel: The first question is: does anyone plan to join remotely?

14:09:18 [nigel]

.. If so please let me know by October 20th at the absolute latest, otherwise we will not

14:09:25 [nigel]

.. have a speaker phone.

14:11:35 [nigel]

.. If you have not yet properly registered please do so soon otherwise it will cost more to

14:11:37 [nigel]

.. do it later.

14:12:18 [nigel]

action-504?

14:12:18 [trackbot]

action-504 -- Nigel Megitt to Send csswg an invitation reminder by 2017-09-07 -- due 2017-09-07 -- OPEN

14:12:18 [trackbot]

http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/tracker/actions/504

14:12:32 [nigel]

Nigel: I haven't yet done this [slaps wrist] but will do so before the end of the week.

14:12:54 [nigel]

Nigel: As well as the joint meetings there is also the proposal for a demo slot on the ..

14:13:05 [nigel]

.. Wednesday, which Pierre and I are in the process of working on.

14:13:09 [nigel]

s/the ../the

14:15:01 [nigel]

Nigel: [iterates through draft agenda topics]

14:15:49 [nigel]

Pierre: Can we schedule IMSC 2 requirements review for Thursday afternoon please?

14:15:54 [nigel]

Nigel: OK noted

14:16:05 [nigel]

Pierre: The goal should be to publish the requirements following that meeting.

14:16:08 [nigel]

Nigel: +1

14:16:19 [nigel]

Pierre: (unless we have done it before)

14:16:48 [nigel]

Nigel: Anything else to add to the topics list?

14:17:38 [nigel]

Group: [nothing else to add at top level]

14:17:47 [nigel]

Nigel: Anything to add as detailed points?

14:17:54 [nigel]

Group: [nothing else to add as further detail]

14:18:58 [nigel]

Nigel: On TTML <--> WebVTT mapping or HTMLCue, Andreas is there anything to discuss?

14:19:14 [nigel]

Andreas: I'm not sure the group is really working on HTMLCue, so there probably won't

14:19:15 [nigel]

.. be anything.

14:19:28 [nigel]

.. For the TTML <--> WebVTT mapping we may spend a bit of time. I think we said it

14:19:41 [nigel]

.. makes no sense to do the mapping if the WebVTT spec is not stable, so we can assess

14:19:53 [nigel]

.. the status and discuss how to proceed. That's possibly the best we can do. Maybe we

14:20:04 [nigel]

.. can take 15-20 minutes on that, it should be enough.

14:20:10 [nigel]

Nigel: Okay, thank you.

14:21:49 [nigel]

Nigel: Okay that's a good quick review of the topics. Now in terms of scheduling discussions,

14:22:00 [nigel]

.. we have CSS joint meeting on the Friday - I guess it makes sense to do that in the morning.

14:22:17 [nigel]

Pierre: There will be a public holiday on the Saturday that is often observed on the Friday.

14:23:00 [nigel]

.. I doubt it will impact our meeting much.

14:24:02 [nigel]

Nigel: We'll fit the other things in around any requests or constraints - if there are any

14:24:45 [nigel]

.. then please let me know.

14:25:30 [nigel]

.. Any other points to raise on TPAC?

14:26:10 [nigel]

Topic: TTML2 Horizontal review - comment and disposition review process

14:26:15 [nigel]

action-506?

14:26:15 [trackbot]

action-506 -- Thierry Michel to Draft a wiki page explaining our review and disposition steps and labels -- due 2017-09-14 -- OPEN

14:26:15 [trackbot]

http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/tracker/actions/506

14:26:54 [nigel]

Thierry: I did this, and sent an email to the group.

14:27:02 [nigel]

-> https://www.w3.org/wiki/TimedText/TTML2_Wide_Review TTML2 Wide Review comment wiki page

14:27:29 [nigel]

Thierry: We have comments either coming on the public mailing list or directly on github.

14:27:45 [nigel]

.. Mainly HR like i18n comes on GitHub and the public sends to the public list.

14:27:56 [nigel]

.. In order to process those comments we discussed adding labels on the GitHub repo,

14:28:09 [nigel]

.. so I went through the different steps. The first category is processing comments within

14:28:24 [nigel]

.. the group, getting to a full or partial resolution, and mentioning what type of comments

14:28:36 [nigel]

.. we are addressing, substantive, editorial, typo, general or undefined.

14:28:49 [nigel]

.. Then the second step is to get approval from the commenter or if there's no agreement

14:28:54 [nigel]

.. go back to discussion on the first steps.

14:29:11 [nigel]

.. I have one issue I wanted to discuss. When we are resolving a response to the commenter,

14:29:29 [nigel]

.. either fully or partially, should we first edit the draft and then send the response or wait

14:29:46 [nigel]

.. for approval before modifying the spec. Glenn, that would be an action on you I guess, so maybe you have a comment?

14:30:00 [nigel]

Glenn: I think we do not need to consult with the commenter before taking action. It is up

14:30:33 [nigel]

.. to us if we want to, or to ask for clarification if we want to?

14:30:41 [nigel]

s/to?/to.

14:30:54 [nigel]

Thierry: This is new, to use GitHub rather than the disposition of comments tool.

14:31:11 [nigel]

Glenn: I think there's only one label right now, called Wide Review comment, unless we

14:31:21 [nigel]

.. also consider the HR comments, which I would lump in.

14:31:38 [nigel]

Nigel: Actually the Process puts HR comments in as part of WR.

14:32:07 [nigel]

Glenn: Okay

14:32:10 [nigel]

Nigel: We have these labels:

14:32:15 [nigel]

.. wide review comment

14:32:20 [nigel]

.. horizontal review comment

14:32:26 [nigel]

.. wg accepted

14:32:30 [nigel]

.. needs discussion

14:32:40 [nigel]

.. editorial

14:32:46 [nigel]

.. awaiting disposition response

14:32:49 [nigel]

.. bug

14:32:54 [nigel]

.. enhancement

14:33:24 [nigel]

.. It looks like some are for comment type categorisation - editorial/bug/enhancement

14:33:49 [nigel]

.. And others map more clearly to Thierry's steps.

14:34:02 [nigel]

.. Thierry it would be helpful if you could look at the labels and see if there's a mapping,

14:34:07 [nigel]

.. and if not, propose any new ones needed.

14:34:09 [nigel]

Thierry: Ok

14:34:16 [nigel]

-> https://github.com/w3c/ttml2/labels Current TTML2 repo issue labels

14:34:50 [nigel]

Thierry: Another clarification. For the first category - if we discuss a comment we should

14:35:01 [nigel]

.. conclude the discussion with a label that the WG assigns. For the second category,

14:35:13 [nigel]

.. which is more process, I will take care of that, drafting and sending a response and adding

14:35:16 [nigel]

.. the appropriate labels.

14:35:40 [nigel]

Nigel: Just to be clear, the first category is "WG processing comment" and the second is

14:35:53 [nigel]

.. "Sending disposition back to the commenter for approval"?

14:36:01 [nigel]

Thierry: Exactly, yes.

14:36:08 [pal]

pal has joined #tt

14:36:33 [nigel]

Nigel: And then the idea is we can use the GitHub issue labels to provide the right information

14:36:36 [nigel]

.. for Transition?

14:36:48 [nigel]

Thierry: Yes, so we can justify to the Director how we dealt with each comment.

14:37:01 [nigel]

.. Glenn, so when we have a resolution within the group, at that stage do you want to do

14:37:04 [nigel]

.. the spec update?

14:37:27 [nigel]

Glenn: Yes, although in some cases we don't have a formal resolution that requires an editing

14:37:43 [nigel]

.. action. Sometimes I do an edit that the group then accepts. I could go both ways.

14:37:56 [nigel]

.. Technically for editorial changes, I don't even have to go through a review period.

14:38:05 [nigel]

.. The degree of formality may vary depending on the issue.

14:39:42 [nigel]

Nigel: I'd add another step in 2, which is "No feedback received from commenter within the stated period".

14:39:46 [nigel]

Thierry: I will add that.

14:40:00 [nigel]

Nigel: Formally we don't need to have a dependency between spec updates and sending

14:40:13 [nigel]

.. dispositions to the commenter - we just have to have everything complete by the time

14:40:18 [nigel]

.. we request transition.

14:41:06 [nigel]

action-506: [Meeting 2017-09-14] Need to add GitHub labels and extra 2.7 step as discussed

14:41:07 [trackbot]

Notes added to action-506 Draft a wiki page explaining our review and disposition steps and labels.

14:41:45 [nigel]

action-503?

14:41:45 [trackbot]

action-503 -- Thierry Michel to Send a reminder to groups for ttml2 review by 8th september -- due 2017-08-17 -- CLOSED

14:41:45 [trackbot]

http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/tracker/actions/503

14:42:14 [nigel]

Topic: TTML2 Styling semantics

14:42:33 [nigel]

github: https://github.com/w3c/ttml2/issues/406

14:43:41 [nigel]

Nigel: When we discussed this before I took the action to create actionable specific changes.

14:44:34 [nigel]

.. I did that, creating a bunch of sub-issues, and that generated some further offline discussion.

14:44:52 [nigel]

.. The result is that I will prepare a PR putting the semantic basis informatively into a new

14:45:09 [nigel]

.. appendix, for each style attribute, and link from a new row in the style attribute table

14:45:24 [nigel]

.. to the relevant place in that appendix. Within the appendix I will include the XSL semantic

14:45:30 [nigel]

.. and the equivalent CSS semantic.

14:46:12 [nigel]

.. That will remove a Note from every style attribute. Before we go into the detail, does

14:46:15 [nigel]

.. that sound okay to everyone?

14:46:27 [nigel]

Glenn: That sounds okay to me. Right now we have an informative note in each of the

14:46:44 [nigel]

.. style sections that point to a particular XSL-FO property, and we have a derivation appendix

14:46:54 [nigel]

.. too, so you should consider moving that information into the new appendix, or leaving

14:47:08 [nigel]

.. it intact and updating it. We don't want to end up with two different incompatible sets

14:47:12 [nigel]

.. of derivation information.

14:47:22 [nigel]

.. If adding these new references to CSS references results in any new documents being

14:47:34 [nigel]

.. added to the reference section then they should go into the informative references not

14:47:45 [nigel]

.. the normative ones. That way I am less concerned about the status of the CSS documents.

14:48:13 [nigel]

Nigel: One thing to note from the TAG meeting I attended was that timbl pointed out that

14:48:36 [nigel]

.. W3C has agreed that Recs can normatively reference CR documents, so there should be

14:48:47 [nigel]

.. no concern about doing that normatively, at least in principle.

14:49:08 [nigel]

Glenn: Many of the CSS documents are not yet in CR.

14:49:11 [nigel]

Nigel: That's a good point.

14:50:18 [nigel]

Nigel: Moving into the detail, I've listed in each sub-issue the XSL reference and the proposed

14:50:37 [nigel]

.. CSS equivalence, so I'd really appreciate any comments on those before I do the editing.

14:50:45 [nigel]

.. I'd like to mention a couple straight away.

14:51:19 [nigel]

Nigel: The first one is that the textDecoration mapping seems like it might be quite complicated.

14:52:04 [nigel]

.. This is because of our inheritance rules for textDecoration, and because XSL 1.1 makes

14:52:14 [nigel]

.. differences compared to the version of CSS that it references, and it's not clear to me yet

14:52:21 [nigel]

.. if a later CSS version has adopted the same changes.

14:52:51 [nigel]

.. I will raise an issue for textDecoration, as well as visibility and zIndex, to complete the

14:52:59 [nigel]

.. set and allow a place for discussion.

14:53:26 [nigel]

.. By the way, I only raised issues for the style attributes that currently reference XSL.

14:53:36 [nigel]

.. All the others either don't reference anything or reference CSS already.

14:53:53 [nigel]

Glenn: On that point, we should be consistent with the use of this appendix so that all

14:54:05 [nigel]

.. references are vectored through it, or as many as possible that have the same basic

14:54:07 [nigel]

.. structure.

14:54:10 [nigel]

Nigel: Agreed.

14:54:45 [nigel]

Topic: tts:displayAlign and CSS justify-content

14:54:54 [nigel]

github: https://github.com/w3c/ttml2/issues/415

14:56:11 [nigel]

Nigel: I wondered why this uses flex-direction: column and then justify-content, rather

14:56:41 [nigel]

.. than the normal inline direction and align-content?

14:56:57 [nigel]

Pierre: I did do some playing around with this. align-content doesn't behave in the

14:57:22 [nigel]

.. expected way, and only applies for multi-line content, and also that column direction

14:57:51 [nigel]

.. means that the before and after edges align properly. I can add notes to the issue.

14:57:58 [nigel]

Nigel: That would be great, thank you.

14:59:04 [nigel]

.. Is tts:displayAlign writing mode dependent?

14:59:38 [nigel]

Glenn: I think of it in writing-mode relative terms, so if writing mode is tbrl then the

15:00:00 [nigel]

.. alignment axis would map to horizontal in the absolute sense, so "before" would align

15:00:03 [nigel]

.. to the right.

15:00:18 [nigel]

Nigel: I wonder if we have any tests for that?

15:00:36 [nigel]

Glenn: I know that ttt has both syntactic and semantic tests for that but I'm not sure if the

15:00:49 [nigel]

.. TTML1 original test suite had them, it may not. It probably has something for horizontal

15:00:54 [nigel]

.. writing modes only, I'd have to check.

15:01:16 [nigel]

Pierre: I'm looking at the IMSC1 tests... there are a lot of writing mode tests - yes, there

15:01:32 [nigel]

.. are some tests for displayAlign there, including one that looks like it was designed

15:01:48 [nigel]

.. specifically to trigger that - writingMode10.

15:02:21 [pal]

https://github.com/w3c/imsc-tests/blob/master/imsc1/ttml/writingMode/writingMode010.ttml

15:02:37 [nigel]

Pierre: It was actually in response to ttml2#269, so maybe there's something there.

15:03:28 [nigel]

Nigel: Since imscjs passes the test, I'm a lot more confident in saying this is a good mapping.

15:03:42 [nigel]

Glenn: I just checked and none of the TTML1 tests check this case.

15:03:59 [nigel]

Pierre: writingMode10 was added on top. Also some of the IRT tests include a combination

15:04:18 [nigel]

.. of writingMode and displayAlign, and they're also included in imsc-tests.

15:04:37 [pal]

https://github.com/w3c/imsc-tests/blob/master/imsc1/ttml/writingMode/writing-mode-tbrl-001.ttml

15:05:12 [pal]

https://github.com/w3c/imsc-tests/blob/master/imsc1/png/writing-mode-tbrl-001/2.000000.png

15:05:57 [nigel]

Nigel: Great, that makes sense, thank you!

15:07:34 [nigel]

Topic: IMSC

15:07:56 [nigel]

Pierre: The latest release version of dash.js now has support for IMSC 1 Text and Image.

15:08:09 [nigel]

Cyril: As a side file or as embedded MP4?

15:08:16 [nigel]

Pierre: It should do both.

15:08:22 [nigel]

Cyril: Great!

15:08:28 [nigel]

Nigel: Good news indeed.

15:08:44 [nigel]

Mike: I'm unclear that's true - certainly the sidecar works fine, but last time I looked at it

15:09:28 [nigel]

.. it was not so fine with ISO BMFF encapsulated MP4.

15:09:43 [nigel]

Cyril: MSE says that something that is not audio or video will fail. The way it works is that

15:09:58 [nigel]

.. dash.js extracts the audio and video parts before feeding them to the MSE part.

15:10:07 [nigel]

Mike: It applies to any text track of course.

15:13:27 [nigel]

Pierre: A very quick announcement too - I'm planning to release IMSC.js 1.0.0 by the end of

15:13:37 [nigel]

.. this week so if anyone has any comments or input now would be a great time to raise it.

15:13:43 [nigel]

Topic: Meeting end

15:14:01 [nigel]

Nigel: Thanks everyone! See you same time next week. [adjourns meeting]

15:14:05 [nigel]

rrsagent, make minutes

15:14:05 [RRSAgent]

I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/09/14-tt-minutes.html nigel

15:22:31 [nigel]

scribeOptions: -final -noEmbedDiagnostics

15:22:34 [nigel]

rrsagent, make minutes

15:22:34 [RRSAgent]

I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/09/14-tt-minutes.html nigel

16:28:16 [Zakim]

Zakim has left #tt