See also: IRC log
<scribe> scribe: nigel
Nigel: Regrets from Cyril but he
asked me if we could cover ttml2#359 and ttml2#358.
... Also thank you Pierre for proposing some issues to
cover.
... Today we can talk about the IMSC 1.0.1 implementation
report as well, which has just
... had a new implementation added.
... Aside from that we have some other issues I marked as
"agenda" and listed on the agenda.
... Any other business or specific points to cover?
github: https://github.com/w3c/ttml2/issues/359
Nigel: Cyril sent me a message
saying he proposes to postpone working on this until after
CR
... because it is editorial only.
... The remaining examples are ttp:profile, tt:animate, tt:set,
isd:isdSequence, isd:isd
Pierre: It's fine for me if we defer.
Nigel: I've added it to a new milestone "Post CR1".
SUMMARY: Group happy to defer remaining examples until after CR publication.
github: https://github.com/w3c/ttml2/issues/358
Nigel: Cyril says the unchecked
boxes are those issues that he does not know how to
progress.
... Particularly he wants to know how to progress in TTML2.
Pierre: I can provide commit hashes if that would help, for the TTML1 fixes.
Nigel: My guess is that he's
looked at them and thinks there may be some differences
in
... TTML2 vs TTML1.
... However I think they're all the same.
Pierre: Yes. I'm happy to go through this and check the PRs and provide suggestions.
Nigel: Thank you!
SUMMARY: @palemieux to provide more information on the current unchecked ttml1 issues listed here.
Pierre: I will also go through the list and make sure it is complete.
group: [Pierre, Nigel and Andreas] agree that separate tracking issues would have made this easier to deal with than a single umbrella issue.
Nigel: Thanks Thierry for
updating the IMSC 1.0.1 Implementation report based on
input
... from BaseX and IRT.
Thierry: I did test against the
test suite for the new implementation. The exit criteria do
not
... require any presentation output, and this tool does not
provide any, so that is okay.
Andreas: If you manipulate for
example the itts:fillLineGap so that it is not valid then
you
... should find that the implementation reports an error and
links to the spec place where
... it is defined.
Thierry: The main question is if the issue is enough to satisfy the exit criteria, and the way I read it, it is.
Nigel: +1
IMSC 1.0.1 Implementation Report
Nigel: Reviewing the CR exit
criteria:
... "For this specification to exit the CR stage, at least 2
independent implementations of every feature defined in this
specification but not already present in [IMSC1] need to be
documented in the implementation report."
... That's done.
... Also:
... "The implementation report is based on implementer-provided
test results for the exit criteria test suite. "
Thierry: I'm satisfied that this is done.
Nigel: In that case what do we do now?
Thierry: Andreas, are you comfortable telling the group that you have provided a new implementation?
Andreas: Of course yes
Nigel: It's also in the minutes
from this here meeting!
... What do we need to do now?
Thierry: We need a transition
request resolution, an updated PR draft and request
transition
... to the Director.
Nigel: Are you able to create the PR draft in the next couple of weeks?
Pierre: There are some pull
requests to merge. I'd like to propose that we handle any
... new issues on IMSC in IMSC 1.1 unless they're fatal.
Thierry: I wasn't aware of that - yes they need to be merged first.
PROPOSAL: Request transition to Proposed Recommendation of IMSC 1.0.1 when all the open issues have been closed.
Pierre: None of the pull requests are substantive, they are all clarifications.
Nigel: Looking at the open pull requests:
Nigel: There are 5, the most
recent opened 3 days ago. They all have approvals.
... Are there any open issues without pull requests.
Pierre: Issues 254 and 253.
Nigel: We asked for feedback
within 2 weeks, 15 days ago.
... I propose to mark this as WR-commenter-no-response.
RESOLUTION: Mark this as WR-commenter-no-response.
github-bot, end topic
github: https://github.com/w3c/imsc/issues/254
Pierre: This one is marked commenter no response already.
Thierry: It's okay to close this and I'll pick it up via the labels.
github-bot, end topic
RESOLUTION: Request transition to Proposed Recommendation of IMSC 1.0.1 when all the open issues have been closed.
PROPOSAL: Defer any further issues raised against IMSC 1.0.1 to IMSC 1.1 unless the WG considers them to be fatal.
Thierry: I think it's fair
RESOLUTION: Defer any further issues raised against IMSC 1.0.1 to IMSC 1.1 unless the WG considers them to be fatal.
Thierry: The good news is that we should have finalised this before rechartering, so that would be one deliverable that is not needed in our new Charter.
Nigel: Strictly it wasn't in the
old Charter, it is a maintenance release of IMSC that is in the
old Charter.
... And we will continue to maintain IMSC in the new
Charter.
Thierry: I will start to prepare
the transition request - once I have the draft from
Pierre
... with the edits then if it's okay I will request transition,
which should be straightforward.
Nigel: I've opened imsc#310 for you to do that Thierry.
Pierre: Glenn has raised comments
on this to make it more similar to TTML2 but the
... pull request has already been approved.
Nigel: I think Glenn's requested
changes look okay, even if they're not particularly an
... improvement.
Pierre: One option is to make Glenn's changes, another is to merge regardless.
Nigel: A third is to minimise the deltas relative to TTML2 by changing TTML2 to match this.
Pierre: Glenn's comment at
https://github.com/w3c/ttml1/pull/301#pullrequestreview-86560883
... seems to differ from his later one at
https://github.com/w3c/ttml1/pull/301#pullrequestreview-90286536
Andreas: Can we resolve to make
the changes corresponding to Glenn's existing comments
... and then any further changes require new issues?
Nigel: I think so.
... If there are any issues after merging then they can be
raised later.
Built version of this pull request
<pal> https://github.com/w3c/ttml1/pull/301#discussion_r162796091
Pierre: There's a duplication in
TTML2 ED of the text about relative resolution of
percentage
... font sizes, which is both in the paragraph text and in the
table row about percentages.
... I'm not happy to put the same duplication in TTML1.
Nigel: Okay, you should point that out on the comment.
Pierre: Did we remove styles on tt?
Nigel: We agreed to.
Pierre: Then the text about
referenced styled ancestor element is no longer needed.
... In TTML1 it can only be region element. I was trying to
keep it close to TTML1.
... The text "If not tt element..." in TTML2 is no longer
relevant.
Nigel: That's fair enough, not to add that TTML2 text to TTML1.
Andreas: Because the nearest ancestor element will always be the parent, yes?
Pierre: yes
Nigel: I think the first change
can be minimised to introducing the word "computed" so
... it says "relative to parent element's computed font
size"
Andreas: I think the current pull request text is fine and the proposed text by Glenn does not really help.
Pierre: I generally tried to keep
things the same as TTML1 so that a diff between 2nd Ed and 3rd
Ed clearly shows the trail.
... This is what Glenn also asked for!
Nigel: I think these valid comments need to go on the pull request.
Pierre: On the first comment I
can make the editorial change to the sentence, that's
fine.
... But reordering will increase the delta relative to TTML1
Second Edition.
Nigel: Since the changes are editorial, we could apply a 3 day rule for the changes relative to the current pull request.
Pierre: [makes changes "live"]
Nigel: After this has built I
propose that we approve it and I'll add a comment saying
that
... in the interests of closing this, since all the substantive
comments have been addressed,
... please open a new issue if there are any further changes to
be made.
Pierre: Thank you. This was the only blocking issue on TTML1.
<pal> https://github.com/w3c/imsc/pull/307
Nigel: Reviewing the TTML2
Privacy and Security considerations, I believe that the
following
... from TTML2 do not apply to IMSC1.1:
... P.7 Access to Processing State - condition is absent from
IMSC1.1
Pierre: +1
Nigel: What about hyperlinking with xlink - is that possible in IMSC1.1?
Pierre: No
Nigel: In that case P.8 does not
apply to IMSC 1.1 either.
... So I would call out that those two do not apply.
Pierre: Alright. If you file this
under the pull request I can add the section and an
informative
... statement that they don't apply.
... Tell me what to write.
Nigel: OK I will.
... [adds to the pull request]
Pierre: I'll implement that ASAP.
Nigel: I'm not concerned by editorial changes to make it read better.
github: https://github.com/w3c/imsc/issues/258
Nigel: @mikedo hasn't responded
here since 5th October.
... There's a proposal with one +1 (from me) to close.
RESOLUTION: Close this issue with no change.
github-bot, end topic
github: https://github.com/w3c/imsc/issues/157
RESOLUTION: WG agrees to close since no action appears to be necessary for IMSC1.1, which references TTML2 for this functionality.
github-bot, end topic
github: https://github.com/w3c/imsc/issues/156
RESOLUTION: WG agrees to close since no action appears to be necessary for IMSC1.1, which deprecates this functionality.
github-bot, end topic
github: https://github.com/w3c/imsc/issues/82
RESOLUTION: WG agrees to put this on the backlog for a future version of IMSC.
github-bot, end topic
github: https://github.com/w3c/imsc/issues/38
Pierre: I confirmed recently that Yiddish is present in CLDR.
RESOLUTION: WG agrees to close with no action
github-bot, end topic
github: https://github.com/w3c/imsc/issues/15
Nigel: Does Ruby affect the HRM?
Pierre: Each Ruby is a CJK character that is counted in the HRM, it is just a character.
Nigel: Same with text emphasis?
Pierre: Good question.
Nigel: fontShear?
Pierre: That's taken care
of.
... We might want a note about textEmphasis. I will file an
issue against IMSC 1.1.
... Thanks for pointing that out - they are not part of
character rendering.
Nigel: What about textShadow?
Pierre: All styles... (checking)
Nigel: ยง10.5 explicit lists a bunch of style attributes.
Pierre: Yes I was afraid of that, the issue needs to include updating that list. I will do that.
Nigel: If you add those do you need to retest and change the threshold values?
Pierre: No just keep it simple and just add the new styling attributes.
Nigel: That's good because an
IMSC1 document with additional styling applied will still
... play in an IMSC1.1 processor, which might in turn have to
be slightly higher performance.
... In terms of the issue you're saying that the complexity
level is just related to the spec
... version.
Pierre: Yes the profile defines the HRM that applies.
Nigel: OK I can live with that.
RESOLUTION: WG resolves to close this issue.
github-bot, end topic
Pierre: Regrets from me for next
week most likely.
... Aside from this ttml1 fontSize issue I think we should be
able to go to CR.
... For IMSC 1.0.1 I will work on preparing the PR.
... For IMSC 1.1 we are essentially blocked by TTML2.
Nigel: For TTML2 there has been
some progress this week; there is still a lot to do.
... We effectively have around 5 days to close off the
remaining issues, otherwise I will
... propose to defer everything else that is open so that we
can proceed with CR mid-Feb.
... It would be useful for everyone who considers currently
open issues to be blockers to
... resolving to transition to label them as such so that the
Editors and the rest of the WG
... are aware and can prioritise fixing them.
... Thanks everyone. [adjourns meeting]