15:00:19 RRSAgent has joined #tt 15:00:19 logging to https://www.w3.org/2018/03/01-tt-irc 15:00:21 RRSAgent, make logs public 15:00:21 Zakim has joined #tt 15:00:23 Meeting: Timed Text Working Group Teleconference 15:00:23 Date: 01 March 2018 15:02:21 Log: https://www.w3.org/2018/03/01-tt-irc 15:02:32 scribe: nigel 15:02:34 Chair: Nigel 15:02:42 Present: Philippe, Glenn, Pierre, Nigel 15:02:47 Regrets: Andreas, Thierry 15:02:57 Regrets- Andreas 15:03:05 Present+ Andreas 15:03:34 Topic: This meeting 15:03:48 plh has joined #tt 15:03:54 Nigel: Today we have TTML1 3rd Ed CR, TTML2, IMSC - general actions and issues. 15:04:04 .. There are one or two issues/pulls marked for Agenda. 15:04:32 Glenn: I'd like to raise a question on TTML1 about what we should call the CR. 15:04:36 https://w3c.github.io/transitions/nextstep.html?shortname=ttml1 15:04:42 Philippe: It's just "CR". 15:05:02 Glenn: Pubrules has "First Public CR", which I selected for TTML2 last night, which worked, 15:05:16 .. whereas I noticed that Pierre just used "Candidate Recommendation" for TTML1 3rd Ed, 15:05:20 .. so we should be consistent. 15:05:29 Philippe: I agree. 15:05:56 .. I think FPCR is for a CR without a WD. That's not the case for TTML1, which should just be "CR". 15:06:11 atai2 has joined #tt 15:06:24 Nigel: Anything else for the agenda? 15:06:29 group: [silence] 15:06:45 Philippe: Is Charter on the agenda? 15:06:51 Nigel: Not right now. 15:06:57 Philippe: Can we touch base on it at the end? 15:06:58 Nigel: Yes 15:07:02 pal has joined #tt 15:07:09 Topic: TTML1 3rd Ed CR 15:07:44 Nigel: What's the status of TTML1 3rd Ed? 15:08:04 Pierre: All substantive issues have been resolved, and all that's left open are editorial issues. 15:08:21 .. I think we're ready to publish as CR - we should plan on publishing in 2 weeks, 15:08:31 .. merging editorial issues today and starting the 2 week clock. 15:08:44 Nigel: Makes sense to me. I added this to the agenda: 15:08:50 PROPOSAL: transition to CR of TTML1 3rd Edition based on build available at https://rawgit.com/w3c/ttml1/TTML1-3ED-CR1-build/index.html 15:09:08 https://www.w3.org/Guide/transitions?profile=CR&cr=rec-update 15:09:17 Philippe: You're not adding features, but you are making substantive changes? 15:09:19 Nigel: Correct 15:09:39 Philippe: I posted a link to the transition requirements for that, above 15:10:03 .. You don't have to publish a WD, you go directly to CR. 15:10:18 .. It could be pretty fast, in general the expectation is that you're ready to move out of CR 15:10:27 .. when you enter CR, because you're just folding errata into the document. In terms of 15:10:41 .. Wide Review, you've published errata already, or you prove that you have had the right 15:11:02 .. people looking at the errata. It should be a pretty short CR period, 20 days, and after 15:11:09 .. 20 days you would go directly to PR. 15:11:58 Nigel: In this case it seems sensible to avoid a test suite and implementation report but 15:12:12 .. instead to point to existing implementations that already exhibit the behaviour being 15:12:19 .. clarified by the substantive changes. 15:12:31 Philippe: Yes that's right, the expectation is that there are already implementations. 15:13:07 .. You need to back this up with some facts, could be based on tests or on something else. 15:13:25 .. The Directors won't mind what you use. You would need to provide evidence such as 15:13:42 .. an implementer report saying that they already do it. 15:14:04 .. There is a desire to make it very easy to update Recs to make them reflect reality. 15:14:58 Pierre: I believe IMSC.js already matches the proposed 3rd Ed. 15:15:05 Glenn: Same for TTT. 15:15:18 Philippe: Record that in the minutes and you can point the Director to it. 15:15:19 Nigel: Done! 15:18:10 Nigel: We have 4 open pull requests, two editorial, and one that brings in the 2nd Ed errata, 15:18:15 .. and a final one to generate a CR version. 15:18:33 Philippe: You don't need to resolve the issues to publish as CR, they can be made at PR. 15:19:30 Nigel: I'm going to propose that we merge the open pull requests, and resolve to publish 15:19:33 .. as CR. 15:20:08 Pierre: I'll take care of the merges. 15:20:11 Nigel: Thank you. 15:20:18 Glenn: No problem. 15:20:55 RESOLUTION: After merging the currently open pull requests, request transition of TTML1 3rd Ed to CR. 15:21:36 Philippe: A reminder: you can publish a new Rec any time if the changes are only editorial. 15:21:39 Nigel: Good to know. 15:21:53 Glenn: I was reviewing the status - I notice that the link to the implementation report doesn't 15:21:56 .. point to anything. 15:22:48 Nigel: Following the discussion above, we need to modify pull #343 so we do not point to 15:23:07 .. an implementation report but instead will demonstrate that the updates reflect current 15:23:17 .. practice by reference to existing implementations. 15:23:42 .. Do we need to be clearer about the exit criteria? 15:23:57 Philippe: You're already asserting that you've met exit criteria by that statement. 15:24:13 Nigel: And the earliest exit date? 15:24:33 https://w3c.github.io/spec-releases/milestones/?cr=2018-03-15&noFPWD=true 15:24:46 Philippe: 28 days from publication, which would be April 26th and Rec on May 31 based 15:25:08 .. on publication on 15th March. You need to send your transition to PR request no later 15:25:11 .. than April 19. 15:26:11 Deadline for comments: April 12, 2018 15:26:12 Pierre: I'll replace the exit criteria line and earliest exit date according to what I see here. 15:26:35 Nigel: Anything else on TTML1? 15:26:45 Pierre: No, thanks for your help on this. 15:26:53 Philippe: Anything I can do to make it easier! 15:26:59 Glenn: Thank you Pierre for your editing work 15:27:32 Topic: TTML2 15:27:45 Nigel: We have one agenda topic for today: 15:28:01 github: https://github.com/w3c/ttml2/issues/683 15:28:09 github-bot, end topic 15:28:16 Topic: Profile related features should be optional ttml1#683 15:28:18 github: https://github.com/w3c/ttml2/issues/683 15:30:11 Glenn: This is a CR2 issue, so we don't have to resolve it today. In TTML1 we did require 15:30:28 .. support for the profile mechanism in all conformant processors, which included all the 15:30:46 .. related syntax and semantics. 15:30:59 .. My position is that we should have the same level of mandate for TTML2 upgraded to 15:31:14 .. the TTML2 level of semantics particularly the introduction of the new contentProfiles 15:31:26 .. and processorProfiles attributes. I agree that there may be some aspects of how it is 15:31:38 .. currently defined in terms of features that would allow us to take out a couple of those 15:31:53 .. features, such as authorial ways of specifying combinatorial methods. As long as the 15:32:05 .. default semantics for those parameters are implemented as a default scenario then I can 15:32:16 .. see scaling back what #profile-version-2 means. 15:32:30 .. As to the issue of whether a profile is mandated now, I was referring to a conversation we 15:32:44 .. had about the version parameter, if there was a requirement for some version 2 feature, 15:32:55 .. I remember a fairly unanimous position by the WG that all documents should specify 15:33:08 .. profile, which I agreed with. Although I agree we did not translate that to normative 15:33:21 .. language in the spec that mandates a profile attribute be present, because we have a 15:33:36 .. defaulting mechanism. We may need to revisit that as an issue in CR2, if it is mandatory 15:33:45 .. for a document instance to specify a profile. I'm flexible no that right now. 15:33:59 .. I definitely think that TTML2 should have similar parity to TTML1 with the requirement 15:34:13 .. for contenrProfiles and processorProfiles attributes. If we let implementations have a 15:34:20 .. free pass on that it doesn't accomplish our goals. 15:34:38 Pierre: Is there one of those features that specifically requires the profile processing 15:34:53 .. algorithm including the defaulting? As long as that's required then we're good. 15:35:03 .. TTML2 has really improved the profile derivation algorithm. 15:35:17 Glenn: The way that those semantics are written, it does not require a processor that 15:35:33 .. supports profiles to dereference and parse a specified profile document, in case it might 15:35:49 .. not be available. Is it legitimate for a processor to completely ignore an embedded profile 15:36:00 .. in a document though? My current position is that is not permissible, it should at least 15:36:15 .. acknowledge and implement the semantics of profile if a required feature is not supported. 15:36:34 Pierre: Your argument is if you don't mandate say the contentProfiles features as part of 15:36:46 .. the transformation profile then by default it doesn't matter what someone write in there? 15:36:48 Glenn: Exactly. 15:37:03 .. At the baseline, recognising the semantics of the default is the baseline, but on top of 15:37:13 .. that we at least need to follow TTML1 for support for embedded profiles. 15:37:35 Pierre: These are required only in the baseline transformation and presentation profiles. 15:38:02 Glenn: Any processor in TTML terms that ignores an internal profile is not a conformant processor. 15:38:18 .. On the other hand if the document points to an external profile the processor could avoid 15:38:23 .. getting it and then be conformant. 15:38:38 Pierre: IMSC 1 has prohibited those internal profiles. 15:38:47 Glenn: Then you're okay. SMPTE-TT does allow them. 15:40:20 Pierre: There's a way to bypass the profile mechanism, which is what a hypothetical 15:40:34 .. processor would do if it did not support profiles because of knowledge embedded in the 15:40:39 .. document processing context. 15:40:56 Nigel: That's my concern, that a TTML2 processor that does not implement profile features 15:41:04 .. might not be considered a TTML2 processor. 15:41:36 Glenn: Maybe with some notes we can finagle this so that a processor that always does 15:41:43 .. an override is not deemed non-compliant. 15:42:50 SUMMARY: Add informative text explaining how a processor that does not support the "required" profile features can nevertheless be considered a conformant TTML2 processor. 15:43:28 Topic: IMSC 15:44:34 Nigel: There are 8 issues marked for "agenda", 7 of which relate to yesterday's joint call with APA. 15:45:26 -> https://www.w3.org/2018/02/28-apa-minutes.html The minutes of the APA call 15:45:49 Nigel: Effectively we discussed only one issue, and I got the feeling that the others are not 15:46:00 .. considered so important, but Janina did say she would go back and check them. 15:46:06 Pierre: That was my feeling as well. 15:46:47 Nigel: The main concern was that the spec should not prevent implementations from 15:47:04 .. allowing some kinds of customisation or adaptation for accessibility needs, with the example 15:47:10 .. provided being increasing the font size. 15:47:31 .. I think we took an action to add informative text. 15:47:42 Pierre: Specifically to link to the MAUR, pointing authors and implementers to that spec. 15:48:04 Andreas: I'm not sure if this belongs in IMSC, TTML or any of the specifications. I agree with 15:48:13 .. some of the comments from yesterday, that for an implementer, some guidance about 15:48:28 .. achieving e.g. customisation of font size with TTML or IMSC is useful. It is not completely 15:48:43 .. arbitrary what kind of customisation is needed - mostly font size, colour and background colour. 15:48:56 .. Possibly not in that spec but in some customisation guidance you could point implementers 15:49:10 .. to a strategy how to achieve that and what to take care about. For example for font size 15:49:23 .. you need to ignore any kind of specified font size and apply just one to all of the elements. 15:49:35 .. I'm not sure at the moment how this should look concretely, but I'm sure we could help 15:49:45 .. implementers to achieve such a feature. 15:50:21 Nigel: It is difficult when the problem space is open ended and so is the authoring practice. 15:50:39 Glenn: That's in the document processing context in TTML1. I know Mike was in agreement with that 15:50:45 .. following analysis of the US requirements at that time. 15:50:52 Pierre: In the US there are legal requirements. 15:51:07 .. As I mentioned it would be incredibly helpful for someone to do some analysis of the 15:51:08 q+ 15:51:22 .. global requirements. I'm fairly convinced that neither IMSC nor TTML is the right place 15:51:29 .. to do that. The APA group is better placed to take that on. 15:51:32 ack atai2 15:51:45 Andreas: I do not completely agree here - the regulation is diverse, but I think you will find 15:51:59 .. font size in nearly all the customisation requirements that exist. Some hints about what 15:52:07 .. you should take care about can be given by the spec. 15:52:24 .. For example you need to know that regions don't dynamically grow with font size, which 15:52:45 .. may be different in TTML to other specs . How you customise based on TTML is something 15:52:48 .. we can help with. 15:52:59 Glenn: I'm sceptical but I suppose it doesn't hurt to look at it yet again. 15:53:20 .. The document processing context can determine anything out of the author's knowledge. 15:53:43 .. Screen readers have very different formatting requirements from CSS based browsers. 15:53:59 Pierre: Andreas's very specific point is something we can act on - it is useful not just for 15:54:12 .. accessibility but for any author. We can just file that as an issue and deal with it. 15:54:24 .. That's very different to the generic question of how to deal with customisation to satisfy 15:54:41 .. various regulatory and user preference. As someone mentioned yesterday, one possible 15:54:56 .. solution is to show the subtitles on a different device, which is done in cinemas. The 15:55:09 .. broader question of customisation - I'm more than sceptical that we can solve this. 15:57:18 Pierre: I'd like to know if the WG approves of the draft disposition I've added to the issues. 16:03:38 Topic: APA comment: align altText restrictions with HTML alt attribute imsc#321 16:03:44 github: https://github.com/w3c/imsc/issues/321 16:04:44 Nigel: There's an outstanding question which we didn't cover yesterday. 16:04:59 Pierre: Rather than the HTML alt attribute where the recommendation is for it to be present 16:05:11 .. even if it is empty, we took a different route. I don't see the need to change anything here. 16:05:35 .. In addition, ittm:altText is deprecated so if there's something to improve it should be done 16:05:52 .. in TTML2. My recommendation is to dispose to make no change or reject. 16:06:04 Nigel: Any other views? 16:06:32 Glenn: Are there two different altText attributes, one in itts: and one in ittm:? 16:06:37 Pierre: No that was a mistake. 16:06:52 Glenn: We went a different route to HTML, we're saying it's metadata and there is no 16:06:58 .. semantic processing requirement. 16:07:46 Pierre: Importantly it is not functionally equivalent to HTML. alt is mandatory in HTML but can be empty. 16:07:57 .. Here we say that it can be omitted if there's nothing to say. I think that's functionally 16:08:06 .. equivalent, so there's no need to change anything. 16:08:16 s/not functionally equivalent/not equivalent 16:08:33 Pierre: The spec already notes that it is _not_ the same as HTML alt. 16:10:09 Nigel: Is anyone proposing a change to the spec in response to this issue? 16:10:13 group: [no] 16:14:03 RESOLUTION: The WG disposes that `ittm:altText` is not equivalent to HTML5 `@alt`. Whereas HTML5 `@alt` is required but allows empty values, `ittm:altText` is absent when there is no value. `ittm:altText` is deprecated and specified only for backwards compatibility; it is replaced by the altText named metadata item in TTML2. 16:14:20 Topic: APA comment: richer semantic layers than forcedDisplay allows imsc#320 16:14:25 github: https://github.com/w3c/imsc/issues/320 16:14:55 Pierre: I have proposed to defer to IMSCvNext, and my comment can be used as the disposition. 16:15:12 Nigel: that's https://github.com/w3c/imsc/issues/320#issuecomment-363529705 ? 16:15:14 Pierre: Yes 16:15:45 RESOLUTION: WG disposition is as per https://github.com/w3c/imsc/issues/320#issuecomment-363529705 16:16:03 Topic: APA comment: permit font related features in Image profile imsc#319 16:16:08 github: https://github.com/w3c/imsc/issues/319 16:16:30 Pierre: I think this is a simple misunderstanding because SVGs are not permitted, only PNGs, 16:16:34 .. so the comment does not apply. 16:17:47 .. We should defer this in case we ever go down the path of permitting SVGs. 16:17:48 Nigel: Yes 16:18:11 RESOLUTION: WG disposes to defer this until such time as SVG images are supported. 16:18:29 Topic: APA comment: specify association between image and text profile documents imsc#318 16:18:34 github: https://github.com/w3c/imsc/issues/318 16:19:22 Nigel: It looks like we simply think the proposal is a bad idea. 16:19:39 Pierre: Absolutely, and that's reflecting what the industry is overwhelmingly saying right now. 16:21:27 Nigel: Looking at the comment, I think it doesn't say that the association data needs to be 16:21:44 .. inside document instances, but that it needs to be specified. 16:21:55 Pierre: The specification is not the right place to document it - it is out of scope. 16:22:02 Nigel: Yes, that's what I was thinking too. 16:23:20 RESOLUTION: The WG considers the method to signal any association between document instances to be out of scope of the specification. 16:23:40 Topic: APA comment: Meet WCAG SC 1.4.1 requirement imsc#317 16:23:47 github: https://github.com/w3c/imsc/issues/317 16:24:12 Pierre: This is not an issue because we do not use colour to signal deprecation in IMSC 1.1. 16:24:24 Nigel: In fact we do not use colour alone to signal deprecation in any of our specifications. 16:25:03 RESOLUTION: WG agrees with the comment, and notes that the TTWG does not use colour alone to signal deprecation in any specification. 16:25:18 Topic: APA comment: presentation customisation imsc#316 16:25:22 github: https://github.com/w3c/imsc/issues/316 16:25:29 Nigel: This is what we largely discussed yesterday. 16:26:03 -> https://www.w3.org/2018/02/28-apa-minutes.html Minutes from yesteday's call 16:27:01 Nigel: Specifically, call out: "JF agrees with the proposition that an informative note citing this MAUR document would improve the caption-related specifications." 16:28:17 Nigel: We could do that by modifying appendix D to include MAUR considerations additionally. 16:28:21 Pierre: Sounds good to me. 16:28:29 .. I'll prepare a pull request. 16:29:11 SUMMARY: @palemieux to prepare a pull request adding reference to MAUR. 16:29:14 github-bot, end topic 16:29:54 Topic: APA comment: Improve introduction imsc#315 16:30:02 github: https://github.com/w3c/imsc/issues/315 16:31:15 Pierre: We had disagreement over pull request #326 that we should discuss now. 16:31:19 atai2 has left #tt 16:37:58 Pierre and Nigel: [discuss stuff already in the pull request] 16:38:11 Pierre: [proposed an edited version combining best of both proposals] 16:39:19 Nigel: Obviously if Image is used because semantics not available in TTML are needed then 16:39:52 .. it is no longer feasible to distribute Text and Image Profile documents representing the same content. 16:41:01 Pierre: I think we cover the point about distributing both text and image versions of the same 16:41:05 .. content sufficiently. 16:41:14 Nigel: Ok, the updated version works for me. 16:41:43 .. I've approved it. 16:42:32 lost audio? 16:43:16 plh has left #tt 16:43:21 plh has joined #tt 16:43:32 Nigel: I'll ping the commenter to request review of the pull request now that we think 16:43:36 .. we know what we want to say. 16:44:00 RESOLUTION: WG disposition is to make the edits as per pull request #326. 16:44:12 RESOLUTION: @nigelmegitt to prompt the commenter for a review of the pull request 16:44:34 Topic: Should the character sets be minimum *font* requirements? imsc#236 16:44:40 github: https://github.com/w3c/imsc/issues/236 16:45:24 Pierre: This is an issue that we seem to come back to regularly. 16:45:29 Glenn: I predicted this would happen. 16:45:40 Pierre: My challenge is I don't understand what the commenter wants. 16:46:00 .. TTML1 and TTML2 already require support for Unicode characters, so an implementation 16:46:10 .. cannot reject a document because it does not accept a unicode character. 16:46:22 Glenn: That's correct. It need not have rendering support or fonts. 16:47:28 Pierre: The spec is trying to be helpful to implementers who do want to support particular 16:47:43 .. languages or scripts. My suggestion is to organise a call with i18n and try to get down 16:47:52 .. to what they are trying to achieve. We seem to be talking past each other. 16:48:06 Nigel: I can take an action to try to set that up. 16:48:24 Glenn: My response would be "No. Font and unicode rendering capabilities are an implementation dependent property in TTML1." 16:48:36 .. Of course in TTML2 with downloadable fonts that opens things up a bit, but generally 16:48:48 .. you cannot support a complex script without adding code, so just adding a Mongolian 16:48:53 .. font won't cut it. 16:49:24 Glenn: I would suggest focusing on the characters aspect not the rendering aspect. 16:50:01 Philippe: Can I try asking a few questions to see if I can channel Richard? 16:50:16 .. Right now are you saying you don't expect implementations to support UTF-8 necessarily? 16:50:31 Pierre: No, IMSC1 requires support for UTF-8 and TTML requires support for Unicode. 16:50:55 Philippe: Are you saying you should not use a character outside the encoding you are using? 16:51:20 Pierre: No, the purpose of the annex is to help an implementer select which particular 16:51:32 .. character they should render. Noone renders all Unicode characters. They make a decision 16:51:46 .. on which set of characters they render based on requirements such as territory. 16:51:56 .. This section is to help implementers. 16:52:09 Philippe: Right now it is worded from the point of view of the author not the implementer. 16:52:27 Pierre: Originally it was a Processor recommendation, and I think Dave Singer got really 16:52:36 .. upset by that, so we changed it to an authoring requirement. 16:52:47 .. In my mind this is really a processor requirement. 16:53:24 Philippe: r12a's suggestion is also a suggestion for implementers. 16:53:35 Pierre: Yes, but if we change to a processor requirement we might get the same objections 16:53:45 .. as we had before. For all intents and purposes they are equivalent. 16:55:40 Philippe: I think we should invite @r12a to this conversation. 16:56:09 Pierre: We're definitely not saying that some scripts do not need to be supported. 16:56:27 Glenn: "Supports unicode" is an overloaded phrase. It just means support for the character 16:56:34 .. semantics irrelevant of their formatting. 16:56:52 Philippe: In that case the treatment would be the same for all characters. Why only those? 16:57:05 Glenn: Yes, that's why I suggested not having this section in the first place. 16:57:12 Nigel: I'll invite him to a discussion. 16:57:29 Topic: Charter 16:57:47 Philippe: I haven't had time to talk to Thierry about this - are you aware of any movement 16:59:36 Nigel: No, the action was with Thierry to organise time with him, me and Dave, so far we 16:59:44 .. haven't found a mutually acceptable time to meet. 17:01:01 Glenn: [discussion with Philippe about publishing TTML2 CR mechanics] 17:01:37 Nigel: Philippe, please can you take care of the transition request? 17:01:46 .. We already have the resolutions in place. 17:02:20 Philippe: Yes, I'll do things on my side, assuming I can do it today the earliest publication 17:02:33 .. date is 8th March. 17:04:49 .. I'll look in the minutes for the resolution. 17:04:56 Glenn: The CfC ends on Monday. 17:05:14 Philippe: If I make the transition request on Tuesday then we will publish on March 13. 17:05:30 Glenn: I'll put that date in the document, plus 4 weeks later (April 10th) for the end of comments period. 17:06:50 Philippe: Nigel, send me a ping if I don't make the transition request on Tuesday. 17:07:00 Topic: Meeting close 17:07:15 Nigel: Thanks everyone for attending today. [adjourns meeting] 17:07:23 rrsagent, make minutes 17:07:23 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2018/03/01-tt-minutes.html nigel 17:09:43 s/ttml1#683/ttml2#683 17:12:47 s/lost audio?/ 17:13:34 rrsagent, make minutes 17:13:34 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2018/03/01-tt-minutes.html nigel 17:18:46 scribeOptions: -final -noEmbedDiagnostics 17:18:47 rrsagent, make minutes 17:18:47 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2018/03/01-tt-minutes.html nigel 18:04:13 Zakim has left #tt 21:44:23 hober has joined #tt