See also: IRC log
<scribe> scribe: nigel
Nigel: Today, I want to note the
TTML2 CR Transition resolution, plus IMSC 1.0.1 PR.
... I've noticed that we owe SMPTE a liaison, so I've drafted
something for discussion and
... sent it to the member list.
... I'd like to check what we need to do for TTML1 Third Ed to
get to CR too.
... There are a number of agenda issues on IMSC 1.1 which
ideally I'd cover today.
... Any other business?
group: [silence]
Nigel: As discussed during last
week's call, there were a few final changes to make to
TTML2
... to get to a state where I could request approval to
transition to CR from the WG.
... I did that by email on Monday and mentioned that I'd record
it as a resolution today.
RESOLUTION: The TTWG requests transition of TTML2 to Candidate Recommendation.
Nigel: That's now recorded,
however the clock started on that as a decision on Monday,
so
... the window for objections will close on Monday 5th March
2018, which is 10 working days after when I sent the call for
Consensus.
... One thing to note is that after sending that CfC we merged
one non-substantive change,
... which was to list ipd as an at risk feature, which had
previously been resolved but was
... accidentally omitted from the document.
Cyril: We need to change the CR exit earliest date.
Nigel: That's true, we do, thank
you.
... I think we can leave that to staff or the webmaster, but
have to agree the period.
RESOLUTION: The earliest CR exit date will be 4 weeks after publication of the CR, i.e. the minimum permitted period.
Nigel: Unfortunately Thierry is
away until 12th March and he has the action to pull
together
... the wide review comments, which as far as I can tell has
not been done yet. Those are
... needed to support the transition to CR.
... We potentially could do it by pointing at GitHub issues -
I'll check with plh if that
... can work.
... Alternatively anyone could pull the information
together.
Cyril: Potentially that could add
another week or two to our publication time depending
... on how quickly Thierry can do it when he gets back.
Nigel: True, I'll check with plh and get back to the group.
Cyril: Can we talk about next
steps?
... After CR, we have to prepare the test suite, implementation
reports, pull requests for
... remaining editorial changes deferred to CR2.
Nigel: Plus addressing any implementation feedback that could be substantive.
Cyril: How do we organise the
effort to produce the test suite?
... I proposed some time ago that people could provide tests
for features they are interested in.
Nigel: I think first we need to
decide which repo to put the tests in, then raise an
issue
... per feature, then handle the contributions as pull requests
which we review as normal.
Cyril: I think plh suggested at
TPAC that we should use web platform tests, but we cannot
... do so with any javascript harness.
Nigel: I think that puts them into the class called "ref tests".
Cyril: The previous test suite
lacked example images for the rendering. That caused some
... trouble for the community that was using it. I think we
should put some effort into
... proposing example renderings for each test.
Nigel: Yes. I'd go slightly
further, which is to say we should provide example (correct)
output.
... That's to cover validation tests, whose output is "good" or
"error" or "warning" etc. as well
... as presentation tests.
Cyril: In the implementation report we could include each implementation's actual output.
Nigel: We don't normally do that,
because it makes the report too big, and it isn't
required.
... We can encourage implementers to share their output for our
use though.
Cyril: how many tests will it be?
Nigel: Not sure, could be 100-200
individual tests, depending how we arrange them, and
... how many new feature designators there are.
Cyril: I'll try to count them and do a first pass estimate.
Nigel: Reminder we have a joint
meeting with APA to discuss accessibility issues with
IMSC
... and WebVTT on Wednesday 28th February, 1700 UTC, details to
follow.
Nigel: The request to transition
to PR has been approved by the Director, and I hope it
will
... be published today.
Nigel: Right now that shows a CR.
Nigel: I've just sent the member
list a draft text of a liaison to send to SMPTE about
... TTML2 and IMSC 1.1. Can we please review now?
Mike: We should include a link to that in the message so they don't look at the pre-CR WD.
Nigel: Good point
Mike: With the URL to the ED in there, I think that looks good.
Cyril: [makes a point about MIME type]
Nigel: OK, I think I have enough to go ahead now, thanks both.
Nigel: I wanted to check what
work remains to publish TTML1 3rd Ed as a CR.
... The 3rd Ed CR milestone has 5 open issues, 1 with a pr
open, so it looks like those need
... to be addressed.
... I'm unclear about the requirements for wide review for
transitioning from TTML1 2nd Ed Rec to TTML1 3rd Ed CR.
... I'll check with staff on the transition requirements.
... I'll also check the differences against TTML1 2nd Ed to see
if anything looks substantive.
Mike: At least in the past the process was abbreviated for a new Edition.
Nigel: I think it still is, though the Process has changed quite a bit since we published 2nd Ed.
Nigel: Thanks, that's been very
useful. Reminder that our next meeting is on Wednesday
... next week, joint with APA, in addition to the regular
Thursday call. I'm expecting to
... circulate joining details for the APA meeting, though
possibly only a day or so prior to
... the meeting.
... [adjourns meeting]