<scribe> scribe: nigel
Nigel: Happy New conveniently
timed rotation around the Sun!
... Today we have a quick max 10 minutes schedule bash for next
week's meeting,
... then thanks Pierre for listing some specific issues and
pull requests to review. Any other
... points to cover or other business?
Andreas: Charter status
Nigel: Ok
group: [no other business]
Nigel: Any timing constraints on
Tuesday and Wednesday? Otherwise we'll start at 0900,
... after arriving from 0830.
... I have to leave on the Wednesday in time for an 8pm
flight
Thierry: I will try to join remotely. If you have discussion about the Charter early in California.
Nigel: I propose to cover Charter
first thing Wednesday morning
... I would like to deal with TTML2 WR comments as soon as
possible, so I propose first thing
... on Tuesday.
Andreas: I will join as long as
possible and would be grateful if we could cover the IMSC
1.1
... contentious issue about foreign namespace attributes
first.
Nigel: OK - everyone else okay with that?
group: [assent]
Nigel: OK let's cover that in a
time-boxed session and then head to TTML2 WR comments
... Perhaps then the sensible thing is to cover TTML1 issues
and pull requests followed by
... TTML2 ones?
Andreas: Sorry for making another
request for the schedule, but if there are any things
... where I'm involved please could you try to handle them
earlier. I had some TTML2 WR
... comments most of them will not require my attendance.
Cyril: Please could you make a list of the issues you're involved in Andreas?
Andreas: Yes I plan to do that.
Nigel: I will want to cover the Charter to some extent, even if timeboxed
Andreas: I haven't seen an updated draft to review before the meeting.
Pierre: Echo that, unless we have a document to review we shouldn't cover Charter.
Nigel: Can we leave the remainder of IMSC 1.1 aside from the Netflix objection to Wednesday afternoon?
Andreas: I have a strong interest
and would like to cover that topic, so not at the end of
... the day for example.
Nigel: OK that pushes it to the
morning of Wednesday, but I will timebox it so we can
cover
... everything else.
... OK we've hit my time limit for this topic let's move
on.
github: https://github.com/w3c/ttml1/pull/302
... https://github.com/w3c/ttml1/issues/266
Nigel: This pull request is
approved by me and Andreas, Glenn has requested a change
but
... agrees that the terminology is equivalent in this
non-normative section.
... Glenn please can we go ahead with this pull request?
Glenn: I want to go on record as
opposing this and will object to it similarly if someone
... proposes it for TTML2. Changing "implementation defined" in
this one case creates an
... inconsistency because it is used in many other places and
it may not be identical in
... meaning to "document processing context". With that on
record I'll go ahead and remove
... my review.
Nigel: It's on record here.
Glenn: I'm doing this in the interests of moving forward.
Nigel: Thank you.
RESOLUTION: Merge pull request #302 as is.
github: https://github.com/w3c/ttml1/issues/239
Pull Request: Clarify semantics of default overflow semantics implied by XSL-FO
Glenn: The statement proposed by
Andreas yesterday is factually incorrect - we do not
... intend to make a restriction on fo:block in particular.
Pierre: Doesn't this text just
say that the fo:blocks generated by body div or p have an
... overflow property initial value of auto
Glenn: It suggests that overflow only applies to those fo:blocks.
Pierre: That's not my reading.
Nigel: Can we not simply say "For example, ..." to make clear that it is not an exhaustive list?
Glenn: We should not list body, div or p.
Andreas: I mentioned them
specifically because they are already listed. My objection
was
... based on the observation that the current text is not
sufficient for understanding why
... we mention this overflow property at all. Glenn if you have
alternative text to propose then
... I can review it.
Glenn: I was just looking at
XSL-FO and in §B.4 Properties and the FOs they apply to, I
see
... something that means we have to change this overall. The
overflow property applies to
... block container and inline container, and not fo:block, so
we will have to go back to the
... drawing board on this issue - I think I knew this once and
somehow managed to forget it.
... Right now of those FO items that are listed that overflow
applies to, I believe we only have
... block-container in TTML1 and in TTML2 we add
inline-container and external-graphic.
Andreas: I propose we should move
on and Glenn if you can make an alternative proposal
... I will review it.
Glenn: OK
... I'm glad we looked at this.
SUMMARY: @skynavga to look again at this and the FO items that overflow applies to.
github: https://github.com/w3c/ttml1/issues/205
Clarify percentage units in padding specification pull request #281
Glenn: Rather than
parentheticals, if we are going to do this then I would prefer
to do it
... as separate sentences rather than inline.
Pierre: Let's edit this now. I
have it in front of me and can edit in real time.
... I will also fix the typo that Nigel spotted earlier.
Glenn: [looks at it]. Go ahead with it.
Pierre: I'm fixing
"conversly".
... (and that's pushed)
RESOLUTION: Group happy to merge
3629b41
... when the build is complete
github: https://github.com/w3c/ttml1/issues/248
State that LWSPs are permitted in tts:fontFamily Pull Request #290
Pierre: Based on the result of
the long conversation and survey I implemented the
preferred
... view. Glenn has objected to it.
Glenn: There's new information -
there is no known implementation that is affected.
... Ignoring the process issues, I have no problem with the
disrecommendation but the
... rationale is lame, and we should not add rationales in at
all - certainly not in this note.
... If someone could point out an implementation then I would
change my opinion.
Pierre: The proposed text was on the issue and you approved it back then Glenn.
Glenn: That's irrelevant.
Cyril: I agree with Glenn that the rationale part is not helpful.
Andreas: I disagree with both of
you. It is incomplete if you do not explain why the
recommendation
... is present.
Pierre: From a process perspective we have to move forward with the resolution we agreed.
Glenn: What was added in the pull request is not what was in the issue.
Pierre: That is a good point, I don't know why I used the phrase "maximal compatibility".
Glenn: I might accept a new sentence saying something about existing processors.
Pierre: I can edit this here and
now while we have everyone who cares about it.
... [edits with input from the group]
... [pushes updated text]
Glenn: I approved this.
Andreas: I already approved too.
Pierre: Thank you so much, apologies for the confusion.
RESOLUTION: Group approves merge of this pull request as at 186591d
github: https://github.com/w3c/ttml1/issues/275
Glenn: I relented a bit and
agreed to remove that second paragraph that causes
confusion.
... I decided that trying to reword it would be too
complicated. I proposed some text under
... the example to explain the result.
Nigel: I could accept that but
would like a statement to explain that when chained
referential
... styling is used then each style is resolved in itself
before being referenced.
Glenn: The algorithm is already specified in 8.4.4.2 and I think writing that weak paraphrase would be too difficult.
Andreas: I agree and also refer
to Cyril's comment that trying to rewrite this will take
too
... long and is not needed.
cyril: I agree with Glenn and
Andreas. I am fine with removing the misleading paragraph
... and adding a note. I would like to note that we have
similar sentences to the second
... paragraph in 8.4.1.1 and 8.4.1.2 and 8.4.1.4. The second
paragraph is always rephrasing
... the algorithm. It would be strange to remove it here and
not there.
Glenn: There's no issue on those though, so we shouldn't do that.
Andreas: Can we agree with Glenn's proposal and open another issue?
Nigel: There's already work to be
done on this pull request so I would like to ask for a
day
... to propose a useful sentence that I think is not
contentious.
Pierre: I'm kindly asking the
Chair to allow us to move forward leaving the door open
to
... add further clarification in additional issues.
Nigel: By the way I already made a proposal and nobody commented on it. Perhaps we can use that.
group: [universal dislike of the proposal from 15 days ago]
Pierre: I've just pushed a change to make Glenn's change.
Nigel: Just to be clear, I think
that this change alone is fine but insufficient to resolve
the
... issue to my satisfaction.
RESOLUTION: Merge pull request as edited in this meeting; Nigel to open new issue for remaining part.
Cyril: Looking at the TTML1
issues open for 3rd Edition Milestone, removing test
suite,
... we have 17 issues open and out of those 6 have pending open
pull requests and 11 have
... none. How will we progress on those 11?
Pierre: As an Editor, 2 are
purely editorial - errata and stylesheets, so they will be
dealt with
... at the last possible second.
... #193 and #251 need group discussion prior to generating a
PR.
... Possibly we can close #193 without any change.
... A couple depend on input from Glenn, #228 and #212. Unless
Glenn can spare some time
... I think we'll need to fix them later.
... #311 and #310 are extremely recent and I haven't been able
to get to them. There's a
... discussion on #310 ongoing.
... I think that covers them.
Cyril: Thank you for that.
Pierre: After this call today I
will generate a formal list for consideration next week in
the
... face to face. There will be half a dozen at most if not
fewer.
github: https://github.com/w3c/ttml1/issues/193
Nigel: It seems like the
consensus is moving towards "works for me" with Glenn
suggesting
... a note.
Pierre: Unless someone has a
strong different opinion the next step will be for me to
... open a pull request with that note in it?
group: [no objection]
Pierre: Glenn, did you mean for
an example or just a note?
... I think the text is already there, but the result is
probably what we need.
Glenn: An example would be more complete, you're right. I did not go as far as suggesting that.
Nigel: What is the extra surprise compared to the existing spec text?
Glenn: There's a similar surprise explained in SMIL 2.1 for definite media.
Pierre: I'm happy to close as is or also to add a note.
Nigel: I think the surprise is
that an anonymous span behaves differently in timing than
... an explicit span, in these conditions.
Glenn: That's right, that's the surprise.
Pierre: I'm happy to add a simple
example showing that.
... There's evidently also a bug with the TTML test suite
here.
group: [no objections]
SUMMARY: @palemieux to craft a pull request with an example and explanation of the surprise.
action-508?
Thierry: That's done.
close action-508
Nigel: I will manually close that as trackbot isn't responding right now.
Thierry: I will do that.
Nigel: Thank you.
... Thierry are you happy that the WR comments on TTML2 are
labelled in the repository?
Thierry: I'm not sure all of them are in case others have been added. I will double check them.
Nigel: Thank you - that will be useful for next week's meeting.
Thierry: I drafted something a long time ago after TPAC and sent a link.
Thierry: I agree you should spend
more time next week on technical things and review
... and finalise the Charter during the regular calls.
Nigel: Thank you, David and I particularly have to work on it.
Thierry: What needs to be
finalised is what goes in the reference draft that will be
used,
... for the new process for charters.
Nigel: [confusion]
Thierry: I will send you documentation.
Nigel: Thank you!
Nigel: Thanks everyone. See those of you who will be there in California on Tuesday morning. [adjourns meeting]