15:02:04 RRSAgent has joined #tt 15:02:04 logging to https://www.w3.org/2018/02/15-tt-irc 15:02:06 RRSAgent, make logs public 15:02:06 Zakim has joined #tt 15:02:08 Meeting: Timed Text Working Group Teleconference 15:02:08 Date: 15 February 2018 15:02:14 Log: https://www.w3.org/2018/02/15-tt-irc 15:02:18 scribe: nigel 15:02:25 Present: Nigel, Glenn, Pierre 15:02:28 Chair: Nigel 15:02:33 Regrets: Andreas 15:03:40 Present+ Cyril 15:03:49 cyril has joined #tt 15:03:53 glenn has joined #tt 15:04:03 Topic: This meeting 15:04:52 Nigel: Today we need to note the request to transition IMSC 1.0.1 to PR, but the main 15:05:11 .. business to cover is TTML2, and getting to a CR document we can request transition for. 15:05:41 tmichel has joined #tt 15:06:09 .. We need to close off all the issues and pull requests with respect to CR1, either by 15:06:26 .. deferring, or agreeing any quick technical points, or merging the related pull request 15:06:43 .. if possible. Then at the end of the meeting hopefully we have a version that we can 15:06:48 .. resolve to transition to CR. 15:07:00 Present+ Thierry 15:07:48 Nigel: If a long technical conversation is needed, we will need to defer the issue to after 15:07:52 pal has joined #tt 15:07:57 .. CR1 - otherwise we won't get through this. 15:08:11 .. Does that work for everyone? 15:08:57 Glenn: Always happy to be aggressive. 15:09:27 Nigel: Any other business or specific points to raise that may not already be obvious? 15:09:47 group: No other business 15:09:55 Topic: IMSC 1.0.1 15:10:20 Thierry: The transition request to PR was sent yesterday; it is now in the hands of the Director. 15:10:35 .. I think there's unlikely to be a meeting so we should expect a response by Tuesday I hope. 15:10:50 .. I still need to finalise the questionnaire for AC review which I will do later today. Once I 15:11:02 .. get the OK from the Director I will request publication. The document is in place, 15:11:05 .. validated and ready. 15:11:21 .. Publication is really to announce on the W3C home page and change the latest link (by the webmaster). 15:11:41 Nigel: Fantastic, thank you Thierry, and Pierre for preparing the version. 15:11:53 Thierry: PR lasts 28 days so we should be ready to move to Rec at the end of March probably, 15:11:56 .. or early April. 15:12:13 Topic: TTML2 Pull Requests 15:12:41 Nigel: Let's iterate through the TTML2 pull requests please. I see 24 open, some have a 15:12:45 .. "agenda" label. 15:13:13 Cyril: I suggest the i18n first, though things have changed overnight with r12a approving 15:13:24 .. many of them - I'm in the process of merging the approved ones 14 days or older. 15:14:01 Glenn: I finally last night began to review the i18n issues I hadn't done before. I already 15:14:18 .. made one minor change, some of the others need some minor changes. Please give me 15:14:37 s/Please give me 15:16:14 Cyril: #605 is approved and 17 days old - I plan to merge as soon as the merge from master travis build is complete. 15:16:44 group: [ok] 15:17:00 Cyril: #613 is next. 15:17:12 Nigel: That's the pinyin example. 15:17:26 Pierre: This has 2x approve, 0x dissent, can we merge it? 15:17:38 Glenn: Can you make a minor editorial change Cyril? You started a sentence with a coded 15:17:49 .. name of an attribute, which is avoided in all TTML2. 15:18:04 Cyril: Ok, I'll change it to "The tts:ruby attribute". That's editorial. 15:18:39 .. [makes the change] 15:19:39 Nigel: OK, we're good to merge #613. 15:19:55 Glenn: I'll approve it. 15:20:46 Glenn: For the record the word "Jay" is not pinyin, it's an English translation. 15:20:48 Cyril: #617 is next. 15:21:00 .. r12a has approved it. 15:21:13 Glenn: I have an issue here - you removed a paragraph that says what to do if a computed 15:21:31 .. value is not supported. That needs to be restored because the sentence about what to 15:21:46 .. do if not supporting is orthogonal. On one case we are talking about a specific value being 15:21:55 .. not supported, in the other if no value is supported. 15:22:13 Cyril: OK, I was under the impression that there's no such thing as not supported because 15:22:18 .. you can always do fallback. 15:22:28 Glenn: It's formulaic - if absent here it's an inconsistency. 15:22:48 Cyril: I don't think this part was of concern to r12a. 15:22:56 Glenn: It does not invalidate the part he agreed. 15:23:05 Cyril: [fixes it] 15:24:20 Glenn: I'll approve that. 15:24:29 Nigel: Okay, that's good to merge then. 15:24:59 Cyril: Next is #618. It's approved by r12a only and is 15 days old. 15:25:05 Glenn: I think that looks okay. 15:25:23 .. Changing complex to double-sided, and the example, yes, that's okay, I'll approve. 15:25:40 Nigel: Okay, that's good to merge then. 15:25:46 Cyril: Next is #619 15:25:59 .. Again approved by r12a only. 15:26:07 .. and 15 days old. 15:30:36 Glenn: [reviews] I'll approve this. 15:30:45 Nigel: Great, that can be merged. 15:31:15 Cyril: #623 is the next one, approved by 2, 14 days old. 15:31:43 .. This is the one about mismatch. 15:31:57 Nigel: Unless there's a significant issue we should go ahead and merged, we've discussed this at length already. 15:32:28 Glenn: There's inconsistency in Ruby/ruby case. I'll approve. 15:33:03 Nigel: We can merge that now. 15:33:08 Cyril: The next is #625 15:33:29 .. This has one request change, no approvals and is 13 days old. 15:33:44 .. It is related to issue #281 and #251. It is about the definition of glyph area. 15:34:30 .. I asked r12a if he would be happy if we were to define glyph area based on the CSS3 "typographic character unit" 15:34:36 .. but that is in WD only. 15:34:49 Glenn: I could not accept that because it has not been accepted in the industry, and is 15:35:00 .. semantically confusing because it confuses character and glyph. 15:35:12 Cyril: Can we define glyph area based on grapheme cluster then? 15:35:32 Glenn: No, grapheme cluster is a linguistic unit, glyph areas are about presentation. 15:35:40 Cyril: They're a unit of the writing system. 15:35:45 Glenn: That's linguistic. 15:35:50 Cyril: I disagree with that. 15:36:00 Glenn: I suggest we adopt Nigel's proposal 9 days ago to leave it as is. 15:38:03 Nigel: I also made a point about whether text orientation applies to glyphs or glyph areas. 15:38:13 Glenn: We're in the semantic mud here because a glyph area is a construct that includes 15:38:27 .. referring to a specific glyph index, referring to a specific shape in the font, so ... 15:38:38 ... yes, it wouldn't hurt to make that change. 15:38:58 .. I would not be prepared to introduce grapheme cluster or typographic character unit. 15:39:06 Cyril: We already refer to grapheme cluster once. 15:40:15 Glenn: I see, I copied and pasted the existing use of grapheme cluster out of a CSS document. 15:40:23 .. I will raise an issue to editorially resolve that in CR. 15:41:12 Glenn: I think our response on #281 is that the group is not currently willing to introduce 15:41:24 .. grapheme cluster as a term at this time. 15:41:38 Cyril: The trouble is there is no good solution, because glyph area is not well defined. 15:41:52 Pierre: The default is to stick with XSL-FO, however loosely it is defined. 15:43:30 Cyril: Could we resolve to say we will fix the definition? 15:43:42 Glenn: We define glyph area. 15:43:48 Cyril: By reference to XSL 1.1. 15:44:12 Nigel: By my reading that definition does not conflict with grapheme cluster or typographical character unit. 15:44:18 .. They could coincidentally be the same thing. 15:44:38 Glenn: The current definition is wide enough. 15:44:48 Pierre: if it is neither the XSL nor the CSS definition it is not helping. 15:44:59 Glenn: It is not inconsistent with either. 15:45:04 Pierre: Why not just refer to XSL? 15:45:20 Glenn: To make it clear, and to introduce the concept of a spacing glyph area or a non-spacing glyph area. 15:45:27 Cyril: That's orthogonal. 15:45:37 Pierre: Sounds like we're going to say it works for us as is. 15:46:02 Glenn: Are you suggesting we don't change anything in #625? 15:46:09 Cyril: Yes, approve the pull request as is. 15:47:34 Cyril: [makes small editorial tweak] 15:47:40 Nigel: [adds note to #281] 15:51:00 Nigel: I've approved that. 15:51:22 Cyril: Even if r12a does not approve this or review it I will still merge it? 15:51:24 Nigel: Yes 15:51:41 Cyril: Those are all the i18n pull requests. Can we check the status of issue #281? 15:51:49 s/8/5 15:52:04 Topic: Handling non-kana text for rubyAlign with spaceAround or spaceBetween ttml2#251 15:52:11 github: https://github.com/w3c/ttml2/issues/251 15:53:33 Glenn: This comes back to the definition of glyph area! 15:54:01 .. @r12a asks which of the two is correct. I would say that the first one is preferred. I can 15:54:16 .. see how he is asking if the sequence of three base latin characters j a y would be treated 15:54:27 .. as a single glyph area. Ideally we would have a note or some language that says that for 15:54:54 .. scripts other than... The real problem is that the rubyAlign language makes use of the 15:55:15 .. glyph area counts, and if you don't know what a glyph area is I can see how that would 15:55:28 .. lead to confusion. The natural interpretation for latin text is that each latin base character 15:55:43 .. is a separate glyph area, arguing for the second treatment. From a user perspective you 15:55:48 .. would want to see the first one. 15:56:03 Cyril: According to the definition of glyph area today, how many do we have, 2 or 7? 15:56:20 .. In #281 r12a was talking about Arabic words and asking essentially the same question. 15:57:01 Glenn: Yes. I can see the question. 15:57:16 Cyril: I get the sense that we need some technical change here, not just an editorial one. 15:57:28 .. How do we deal with the comment? Are we prepared to let this out in CR1 and possibly 15:57:42 .. improve it in CR2? 15:59:07 Nigel: Are we saying that @r12a's second rendering is correct by the current definition and 15:59:14 .. we are happy to leave it at that even though it may not be ideal? 15:59:17 Pierre: Happy with that. 15:59:20 Cyril: +1 15:59:53 .. Can we respond saying we will prepare test vectors testing this and will deal with any 16:00:00 .. implementation feedback based on those? 16:00:02 Glenn: +1 16:00:03 Pierre: +1 16:02:59 RESOLUTION: We will create tests to verify this behaviour and will be open to implementation feedback based on the results of those tests during CR. 16:03:02 github-bot, end topic 16:04:30 Topic: TTML2 Pull Requests. 16:04:36 Nigel: Let's look at #594. 16:04:48 Glenn: Nigel and I discussed this yesterday and he persuaded me that the proposal to add 16:05:00 .. schemas is defining something that was not there before, allowing the author to specify 16:05:10 .. an actual schema as opposed to some defaulting process. On that basis, even though I 16:05:23 .. think there would be no risk in adding this, I understand that there are concerns and that 16:05:38 .. it might not be fully fleshed out at this point. In particular, the logic for combining profiles 16:06:14 .. does not answer the question of how to combine schema definitions. The bottom line 16:06:28 .. is I'm prepared to remove the schema elements part of this PR in order to move forward. 16:06:40 Cyril: You can open a new issue and mark it as ttml.next. 16:07:28 Glenn: I will mark the pull request as ttml.next to remind me. 16:11:50 Nigel: [adds a comment to the pull request] 16:17:56 group: [discussion of process] agrees to merge modulo removal of schema and schemas, assuming that it can be approved in the next day. 16:19:00 Nigel: Next one is #603 16:20:31 Cyril: The simplest thing is to make the base text in TTML1 and TTML2 match. 16:21:01 Glenn: Correct. I did not review the material that went into TTML1. 16:21:07 Nigel: I think you were in that discussion. 16:21:17 Pierre: We can correct both TTML1 and TTML2 post-CR simultaneously. 16:21:32 Glenn: The no-op procedure is to do nothing here, and I'm happy to go ahead into CR 16:21:34 .. with it open. 16:21:38 Pierre: I would object to that. 16:21:57 Glenn: I see a path to resolving this - what was there before was broken. 16:22:22 .. I made some changes in the pull request, and there are a couple left, one to reintroduce 16:23:05 .. the set element, and the other to handle some of the semantics from w3c/ttml1#193. 16:23:34 .. I might be able to fit in exactly the same language as TTML1 3rd Ed, and can fix the portion 16:23:52 .. allowing it to be before. 16:27:50 Nigel: You can't resolve the timing without creating anonymous spans. 16:28:18 Glenn: I plan to allow for anonymous span creation to be done prior to ISD construction and 16:28:49 .. that it does not need to be done twice. 16:28:54 Nigel: I need to review that text. 16:29:26 Pierre: If it does not match TTML1 for better or worse (and I can't backport it to TTML1 Third Edition) then I plan to file an objection. 16:29:42 .. I would like to take the time to fix both post CR rather than rushing today. The simplest 16:29:54 .. is to merge what's in TTML1 today and then file an issue if there's a problem. 16:30:00 Glenn: I think it can be fixed today. 16:31:42 Nigel: The next one is #616. Open 15 days, some conversation, no approvals. 16:32:40 .. Last week we covered this and Glenn said it was on his list, but there's been no approval so far. 16:32:45 Glenn: There are a lot of changes here. 16:33:26 Nigel: I moved the media timing section as requested. 16:39:04 Glenn: I'm not prepared to agree with this today. 16:39:31 Pierre: I'm neither happy nor unhappy with this, but given the duration it has been opened I can approve it. 16:42:29 Nigel: The next one is #620. 1 approval, open 14 days, so I think this can be merged. 16:42:52 Glenn: As it's a note I'm approving it. 16:43:29 Nigel: Thanks. Next is #632, open 9 days ago, and 1 request for changes. 16:46:21 Glenn: I've changed the name of #661. 16:46:32 Nigel: It's only been 3 days since the most recent substantive changes. 16:46:49 Pierre: By consensus on this call we can choose to merge this but note that people still have 16:46:55 .. 2 weeks to object. 16:47:36 Nigel: I can go ahead with that at this time, and note in the call for consensus those 16:47:40 .. pull requests that were merged early. 16:48:26 RESOLUTION: Allow an early merge of #632 16:49:46 Nigel: The next is #638, 7 days old, 3x approvals. 16:49:58 RESOLUTION: Allow an early merge of #638 16:50:28 Nigel: Next: #639, open 6 days, 1 request for change, 1 approval. 16:51:35 Nigel: I think this is currently not well formed. 16:51:57 Glenn: I view this as a nit, can it be resolved after CR? 16:52:37 Nigel: Can we please add a statement that conflicts are an error state? 16:52:42 Glenn: I can do that in the next few hours. 16:52:54 Nigel: That will allow me to approve it. 16:54:09 Nigel: We have to do CR exit criteria for CR. I opened #667 earlier. 16:56:51 Glenn: I have an issue with "independent" because it is not defined anywhere. I want a note 16:57:01 .. that qualifies that by saying that the term "independent" is not defined. 16:58:30 Nigel: We don't need that. The Director will decide what is independent. 16:58:50 Pierre: I don't agree with a note, the best we can do is refer to the Process document. 16:59:16 Thierry: "Independent" is not defined - a lot of documents go through the Process, some 16:59:27 .. do not have implementations. It's a generic term. I think everyone understands what 16:59:41 .. independent means - two implementations by the same company are not independent. 16:59:48 .. As Nigel said, the Director will decide. 17:00:19 Pierre: I don't think we should change our exit criteria here, compared to other TTML based specs. 17:02:11 Nigel: The document is governed by the Process already, so we don't need to state more. 17:03:08 Pierre: I object to adding a note. 17:03:24 Cyril: I'm approving the pull request as is and object to removing "independent" 17:03:54 Pierre: Likewise I approve it and object to removing "independent"/ 17:04:00 s|/| 17:05:23 Glenn: We need to cover feature designators. 17:05:38 Nigel: In my view we can cover feature designators after CR because it is part of test suite 17:05:42 .. development. 17:05:56 Glenn: I'd be fine with that. A strict reading of substantive changes could be triggered 17:07:11 .. because feature designators form part of profile documents, which are normative. 17:07:53 Nigel: I think I'd agree that adding a feature designator would require a CR2. 17:07:58 Glenn: How long does it add to the process? 17:08:30 Pierre: A month. I think we have enough time for this. 17:08:32 Nigel: +1 17:09:06 Nigel: I think we can take a bit more time over feature designators and issue a CR2 without 17:09:15 .. any change to the end date for work on this spec. 17:09:26 Glenn: I hope so, but I'm nervous. In that case we don't need to merge the feature 17:09:34 .. designator pull request unless we want to. 17:09:56 Glenn: I've opened #664, which we could merge. I listed a few others in the issue that I 17:10:23 .. can do today. There are 5 that are extensions to TTML1 that we haven't featurised yet. 17:10:33 Nigel: I'd be happy to wait for those all to be in the pull request today. 17:10:45 Glenn: I'll do those today and then we have tentative approval to merge? 17:10:47 Nigel: yes 17:10:54 Glenn: It'll be marked as merged early. 17:11:24 diretor will consider adequate implementation experience 17:11:28 https://www.w3.org/2018/Process-20180201/#implementation-experience 17:11:39 Glenn: We need to list the at risk features too. 17:12:33 Nigel: I think we cannot get confidence on a full list of at risk features so we should go 17:12:48 .. with what we have today and if we need to change it do so in a CR2. 17:12:57 Glenn: This is in issue #662. 17:13:05 Pierre: I think we should go with what we have today also. 17:13:40 Nigel: I think given the time we have to adjourn, and by default will defer the remaining 17:13:51 .. open pull requests and their associated issues. 17:14:36 Topic: Meeting close 17:15:02 Nigel: Thanks everyone for getting through so much today. I'll aim to issue a call for consensus for transition to CR tomorrow. 17:15:11 .. [adjourns meeting] 17:15:15 rrsagent, make minutes 17:15:15 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2018/02/15-tt-minutes.html nigel 17:31:20 Zakim has left #tt 17:34:03 s|s/Please give me| 17:34:11 s/Please give me/ 17:38:42 rrsagent, make minutes 17:38:42 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2018/02/15-tt-minutes.html nigel 17:39:57 ScribeOptions: -final -noEmbedDiagnostics 17:39:58 rrsagent, make minutes 17:39:58 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2018/02/15-tt-minutes.html nigel 17:40:05 github-bot, end topic