14:00:04 RRSAgent has joined #tt 14:00:04 logging to https://www.w3.org/2018/03/29-tt-irc 14:00:06 RRSAgent, make logs public 14:00:06 Zakim has joined #tt 14:00:08 Meeting: Timed Text Working Group Teleconference 14:00:08 Date: 29 March 2018 14:00:25 Log: https://www.w3.org/2018/03/29-tt-irc 14:01:10 scribe: nigel 14:01:15 Present: Cyril, Pierre, Nigel 14:01:17 Regrets: Andreas 14:01:20 Chair: Nigel 14:01:24 Topic: This meeting 14:03:33 Nigel: Next week I'm able to make the call, but the week after, the 12th, I can't. 14:03:42 Cyril: I also can't make the 12th. 14:03:48 Pierre: Regrets for me for the 19th. 14:03:52 present+ dsinger 14:04:58 Nigel: For today, we have TTWG Charter, if there's more to discuss on that - will wait for 14:05:03 .. staff to join before confirming. 14:05:24 .. We also have TPAC, and a possible F2F in Munich in May, 14:05:42 .. TTML1 3rd Edition CR needs to be discussed. 14:06:09 .. Not sure if there's anything to discuss on TTML2. 14:06:34 .. For IMSC there is one agenda point, a pull request, which we may be able to resolve with 14:06:39 .. a brief conversation. 14:07:43 .. If we have time we can go through the IMSC vNext Reqs pull requests, which have been 14:07:45 .. open for a while. 14:08:23 .. I don't think there's anything to discuss on CSS. 14:08:30 .. Do we have something for WebVTT? 14:08:42 David: Yes, we should approve the transition to CR. 14:08:58 Nigel: Any preferences about what order we do these in? 14:09:09 Pierre: I'd really like to close the IMSC ticket, because it is blocking CR. 14:09:27 .. If there's anything missing on that push-back on TTML1 we should address that ASAP. 14:10:16 Nigel: We should be able to get through everything today - we're scheduled for 2 hours. 14:10:34 Topic: F2F meetings 14:10:48 Nigel: Thierry wants us to discuss if we wish to meet at TPAC in Lyon, which is at the end 14:10:52 .. of October this year. 14:11:39 .. I expect us to be getting towards the end of our Rec transitions for all our specs at that 14:11:49 .. time, but I expect there will be a lot to discuss, so I propose that we ask for what we 14:11:53 .. usually ask for, i.e. 2 days. 14:12:02 Pierre: Sounds good. 14:12:13 Nigel: Okay, I'll complete the WBS for TTWG asking for that. 14:12:35 .. There will be a request for any groups we don't want to clash with, or want to have joint 14:13:04 .. meetings with. I would at least propose that we ask for a joint meeting with CSS WG like 14:13:36 .. we did last time, on the basis that we expect to have made some progress. 14:13:42 .. Any other thoughts? 14:13:51 group: [silence] 14:14:57 Nigel: The next proposal is that we have a f2f on May 22 and 23rd at IRT in Munich. Andreas 14:15:13 .. has kindly offered to make space available there before the IRT subtitle technology symposium, 14:15:31 .. and I think the timing will be good to iterate over TTML2 and IMSC 1.1 tests for the test suite. 14:15:57 Cyril: I might be able to make that. 14:16:15 Pierre: It's unlikely I'd be able to make it. 14:17:56 Nigel: Okay, I'll send an email round about this; for now it is a proposal. I think if we 14:18:06 .. intend to talk about test suites we need the right people in attendance. 14:18:24 Topic: TTML1 3rd Edition CR 14:19:10 Nigel: We submitted the transition request to CR for TTML1 Third Edition and Ralph 14:19:27 .. responded expressing surprise that no new tests have been created to verify that implementations 14:19:41 .. conform to the clarifications and error corrections. He asked if the test suite has been 14:20:02 .. updated at all. He's basically asking us to update the test suite to demonstrate it. 14:20:32 Pierre: I think it only needs to be updated selectively to cover the areas changed. 14:20:35 Nigel: I think that's right. 14:20:56 Pierre: I think that's possible to do. 14:22:32 Nigel: I think if we're claiming that implementations meet the updates already then we need 14:22:38 .. to provide evidence. 14:22:51 Pierre: My recommendation is to change the SOTD to include exit criteria that require 14:23:09 .. passing tests, and then create those test suites. Alternatively I could provide GitHub 14:23:23 .. pointers to issues on imsc.js, but that might be a lot of work with no guarantee of success. 14:24:54 Nigel: That would work. 14:25:06 .. If we're going to do that we need to make the updates and re-file the transition request. 14:25:11 Pierre: I'll make the SOTD updates. 14:25:26 Nigel: When that's done, please let me and Thierry know so Thierry can update the transition request. 14:26:34 Topic: IMSC 14:27:03 Nigel: we have one pull request on the agenda. 14:27:16 Topic: Update feature list per TTML2 imsc#350 14:27:24 github: https://github.com/w3c/imsc/pull/350 14:28:24 Nigel: I think the main issue here is the syntax permitted for tts:extent. 14:32:55 .. I don't understand why the `auto` value is permitted for `tts:extent` on `tt:tt`... 14:33:00 Pierre: It was permitted before. 14:33:27 Nigel: But has its meaning changed? It used to be defined as the Root Container Region, 14:33:39 .. now it is defined as "contains" whose meaning is defined by appendix H. 14:33:56 Pierre: When I went through this before I decided that "contains" ends up meaning the same 14:34:53 .. as "auto" used to mean in TTML1 - it yielded the right outcome. 14:35:14 .. Note that in IMSC pixelAspectRatio is prohibited, so "contains" resolves as the display 14:35:22 .. aspect ratio of the root container region. 14:35:45 Cyril: And the algorithm in H.1 and H.2 match? 14:35:58 Pierre: Yes, if there's no DAR and PAR then it's H.1.1 which corresponds to TTML1 100% 100%, 14:36:02 .. i.e. auto semantics. 14:36:58 Nigel: So Pierre you're arguing that contain and auto resolve to the same so it is better to 14:37:15 .. have a single syntax option rather than allow the semantically more precise "contain"? 14:37:17 Pierre: Yes. 14:37:58 Cyril: There may be cases where auto and contain resolve differently? 14:38:09 Pierre: Outside the tt element, maybe, but on the tt element they are identical. 14:38:33 Cyril: Yes, the spec says if the value is auto, and its the tt element, then it maps to contain. 14:38:37 .. So they are equivalent. 14:38:47 .. I think the constraint on IMSC is correct. 14:38:51 Nigel: Okay, I'm persuaded. 14:39:59 Nigel: The next comment here is about extends and restricts. Pierre commented that 14:40:15 .. there's no requirement for them, and presumably there's no benefit identified for them here? 14:40:27 Pierre: No, I have not. 14:41:19 Nigel: I can see that from an implementation perspective it may add a fair amount of code 14:41:40 .. and tests to allow extends and restricts. 14:42:16 Pierre: Also this new TTML2 syntax was not broken out as a specific feature designator. 14:42:21 .. I think I raised an issue on TTML2 for that. 14:42:34 .. Maybe later it will be made a feature and we can then refactor this text. 14:42:42 .. It would be a lot clearer. 14:43:14 Nigel: Ok, there are conflicts here but I'm happy to approve the changes. 14:43:14 dsinger has joined #tt 14:43:29 SUMMARY: @nigelmegitt to approve the pull request 14:43:40 Pierre: The conflicts are super-boring, I'll fix those. 14:43:51 github-bot, end topic 14:44:28 Topic: Clarify the use of recommended character sets imsc#354 14:44:33 github: https://github.com/w3c/imsc/pull/354 14:44:45 Nigel: You're waiting on someone from i18n on this, Pierre? 14:45:00 Pierre: Yes, during the call people used the term "safe" but the comments were against that. 14:45:11 .. Instead, I've proposed to use "common" and am waiting for a response on that. 14:45:40 Nigel: That change was made on the pull request, but there's no comment about it, but 14:45:43 .. there is on the issue? 14:46:03 Pierre: Oh yes, I could prompt Addison to review with a comment on the pull request. I'll just do that. 14:46:41 Nigel: I'm not sure what we can do more on this at the moment. 14:46:56 Pierre: It is only a matter of finding the right terminology now, I think we're good on the rest. 14:47:01 Nigel: Looks that way. 14:47:08 tmichel has joined #tt 14:47:34 SUMMARY: WG awaiting review feedback from i18n. 14:47:49 Pierre: We should communicate to them that we plan to request transition to CR in 7 days 14:47:57 .. so they need to come back soon if they have a strong concern. 14:48:15 Nigel: That sounds like an action for me to send a message immediately after this meeting. 14:48:19 Present+ Thierry 14:48:35 github-bot, end topic 14:49:32 rrsagent, make minutes 14:49:32 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2018/03/29-tt-minutes.html nigel 14:51:20 Topic: TTWG Charter 14:51:34 Thierry: Not much to discuss - I have submitted the draft charter to W3M, and I think they 14:51:43 .. were supposed to review it yesterday but I have nothing to report yet. 14:51:57 Topic: WebVTT 14:52:02 Chair: David 14:52:21 David: At TPAC we looked at the transition request, and the actions requested have been 14:52:34 .. done. We were waiting on closing out some issues on the spec which Nigel was unable 14:52:55 .. to get to for the first few weeks of this year. My feeling is that the remaining issues can 14:53:05 https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tt/2018Mar/0133.html 14:53:10 .. be closed off in CR. I would like to ask for the formal agreement of the group to do 14:53:23 .. the final transition. I sent the final draft of the request a couple of days ago. 14:53:35 .. I updated the wide review page a couple of days ago to reflect the current status. I hope 14:55:39 .. we're at the formal stages now - we had the [scribe loses track] 14:56:12 .. There will likely be some changes to be made during CR, which are not major changes 14:56:27 .. for implementors but may for example require a change to the computed CSS property value for something. 14:56:46 .. I think we need an updated version of the spec with SOTD etc for CR, which Silvia and/or 14:56:52 .. Thierry can do. 14:57:12 The remaining edits are clarification, warning, and so on and don’t represent technical changes to the specification, so I think it’s safe to do them along with any other disambiguations needed by implementers during CR. 14:57:18 Nigel: What I normally do at this point is ask Thierry what is needed now for the transition request? 14:57:33 Thierry: For the SOTD there are a few things that need to be put in, first the exit criteria. 14:57:47 .. From David's statement, that is like what we have been using within this group, 2 implementations 14:57:51 .. for each feature, so that sound good. 14:58:04 .. The second thing I have not seen are the features at risk, because there are some features 14:58:10 .. that are not implemented like regions and some others. 14:58:31 David: We discussed this, it's at the end of point 1, and as discussed, we don't want to drop 14:58:50 .. them so we aren't marking them as at risk. They are not features to drop if they are not 14:59:08 .. implemented. The group wanted to wait until they're implemented, and have no features at risk. 14:59:19 Thierry: Okay. Another thing is for the test suite and the implementation report. Of course 14:59:30 .. we have to fill the implementation report in later. We should have a link to a test suite 14:59:35 .. or something if it is incomplete. 14:59:54 David: Yes, that's also in the transition request, there's a fairly thorough test suite in 15:00:06 .. web platform tests, which generates automated reports for browsers, and we're going to 15:00:23 .. have work out how to do that for non-browser implementations during CR. That's for 15:00:42 .. me and the group to do during CR. 15:00:49 Nigel: We don't normally ask for that at this stage? 15:01:02 Thierry: We don't need the whole thing, just a link to whatever is there. 15:01:23 David: We believe it is pretty thorough at this point, I'm sure there are bugs that people will 15:01:28 .. find during implementation work. 15:01:44 Thierry: The last bit is the wide review, I guess it is done, we have a URI, and it will be up 15:01:48 .. to the Director to review it. 15:01:59 .. The last thing is WG approval for transitioning. 15:02:06 .. I need a link to point to. 15:02:33 PROPOSAL: Agree to the CR transition to WebVTT 15:02:45 Pierre: For clarity, that's based on the gh-pages branch on GitHub? 15:03:03 David: Yes, that's correct, Silvia will need to update that. 15:03:14 Pierre: And all the licence and IPR issues have been addressed and there's not going to be 15:03:17 .. any drama there? 15:03:33 David: I don't think so, no exclusions have been filed so far and we asked for FSA from all 15:03:39 .. the CG contributors. 15:03:56 Pierre: And some of the contributions have been from the CG since then, or all from members of the WG? 15:04:03 .. (after that commitment was received) 15:04:19 David: Even if they came from the CG they did sign a CLA. The only issue would be if they 15:04:33 .. contributed someone else's IPR and that's a door I don't know how to close. There's nothing 15:04:38 .. that's giving me any anxiety. 15:04:53 Pierre: So the next step is to create a CR branch for the group to review the final version. 15:04:58 .. When will that be available? 15:05:09 David: You'd like a formal branch in GitHub? 15:05:34 Pierre: Normally that's what happens, so there's a formal document to review. 15:05:53 .. I'm encouraging you to do this as soon as possible so there aren't any surprises? 15:06:07 David: I'll see what we can do - is there anyone on the team who can help? 15:06:16 Thierry: I can help on the SOTD of course. 15:06:29 Pierre: I don't have any a priori objections, thank you for doing all this additional work. 15:07:04 Nigel: I'd second Pierre's request, let's have the actual document that we are going to approve on the table. 15:07:13 Thierry: It has to be a CR version for approval by the Director. 15:07:31 Pierre: And to be clear, on the open issues you do not expect any formal objections? 15:08:12 David: I'm not seeing any clouds on the horizon for the remaining issues. 15:09:24 Nigel: Me neither. 15:11:04 .. David, you've been clear that you have limited resource for chairing and editing. Will there 15:11:17 .. be the effort available to make any changes and to work on it post-CR so that it can get 15:11:27 .. to Rec? My concern is that it could linger in CR forever. 15:11:27 Proposed resolution: The editor and the team to prepare the CR. The WG approves the CR transition, with said prepared CR to be presented to the Director for approval, using the transition request in https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tt/2018Mar/0133.html 15:11:54 David: I share your antipathy to specs staying in CR indefinitely, I would suggest that if 15:12:07 .. we cannot get to Rec within the next Charter period then at that point we publish the 15:12:15 .. spec as a Note and stop working on it in the WG. 15:12:31 Nigel: Thank you, by time-boxing the CR that addresses my concern. 15:13:22 s/Proposed resolution/PROPOSAL 15:15:43 Pierre: I think you can confidently create a CR ready spec and state a resolution to proceed 15:15:53 .. with CR with this draft, intended to be the CR. 15:16:10 .. Then there's no surprise. Otherwise we could take a resolution today, and in 2 weeks there's 15:16:27 .. something objectionable to someone and then we restart the clock in 2 weeks. 15:16:58 David: I was expecting the group to approve transition today. Thierry, can you prepare the 15:17:04 .. CR version of the document today? 15:17:25 Can Thierry do the pull request for the SOTD section in the next 24 hours? 15:17:26 Thierry: I can work on it, and probably not in the next 2 hours, but tomorrow morning. 15:17:40 plh has joined #tt 15:17:49 .. We also need in the SOTD the date for earliest advancement beyond CR. Probably we can 15:17:58 .. put 3 months or whatever. 15:18:47 Nigel: Good point. 15:18:53 Thierry: I propose at least 2 months. 15:19:06 David: It's not going to happen for at least 6 months. We need implementations of the changes 15:19:12 .. and of regions. Give it 6 months. 15:19:22 Thierry: You don't need to do that, you can do it in 3 if those criteria are met. 15:19:28 David: Okay, put 3 months then, that's fine. 15:19:41 Present+ Philippe 15:19:52 Philippe: Hello, I apologise for arriving late. 15:20:28 .. I don't mean to derail this meeting, but I have one question. We have not started review 15:20:43 .. of the TTWG charter already, but I have one question: How is WebVTT used on the web 15:20:55 .. today? Not an implementation question, a usage question. Is it actually used on the web, 15:21:07 .. or only as an input format so video services can do their own thing with captions. 15:21:23 .. TTML is used as an input format, and then there's client side JS that takes that and displays 15:21:53 .. the subtitles and captions at the right time. YouTube, Netflix and others don't use TTML or WebVTT, 15:22:05 .. they use their own code to present the captions. 15:22:13 .. So you don't need native implementation of captions. 15:22:29 .. The second question is how are we going to be able to get out of CR for WebVTT? 15:22:49 .. If my assumption is correct, there is no incentive for browser implementers to update 15:23:06 .. their implementations. That's part of the questions that we are asking ourselves generally 15:23:12 .. about the future of captions on the web. 15:23:28 David: I agree a lot of captions are done with polyfills and HTML/CSS created on the fly. 15:23:59 .. One of the issues with WebVTT is that it is not used for presentation. 15:24:45 .. I do know that in [apple products] we take the WebVTT natively. [sorry, scribe subject to a lot of local background noise] 15:25:14 Philippe: Ok, I didn't find any statistics, for example in Chrome, of how often the native 15:25:17 .. implementations are used today. 15:25:23 David: Okay, I'll try to find out. 15:25:43 Philippe: The fear is that it is not used so we will never get to the top of the priority list for browsers. 15:25:56 David: I share your concern, if you can do an adequate job with polyfills then who needs to 15:25:59 .. do a native implementation. 15:26:12 Philippe: Yes, that doesn't undermine it as an input format. 15:26:39 .. For example I do not know if the WebVTT implementation natively would allow positioning 15:26:46 .. of captions on the fly like YouTube allows. 15:26:59 .. We may be chasing something that the market out there is not interested in having in terms 15:27:02 .. of native implementation. 15:27:06 David: Right. Yes. 15:30:31 Nigel: In terms of resolutions, I think the next steps are to produce the CR version of the 15:30:44 .. document and then for David as Chair to send a message to the group specifying the 15:31:00 .. resolution that he believes has been made, and highlighting the review period under the 15:31:16 .. group charter decision policy (which is 10 working days). 15:31:32 Philippe: At the moment we could try to run the transition request in parallel as long as it 15:31:51 .. is clear to the Director that there is an opportunity for the decision to be reversed. 15:33:00 rrsagent, generate minutes 15:33:00 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2018/03/29-tt-minutes.html plh 15:34:18 Philippe: On the IPR question, if there's a question about CG/WG working, here it is the same 15:34:33 .. as if a contribution comes in on the WG public mailing list, where we have to figure our 15:34:37 s/our/out 15:35:03 Philippe: how substantive the contribution is and address that. It doesn't change the risk 15:35:24 .. associated with IPR in the spec that is not directly from a contributor. If you have concerns 15:35:35 .. about that then we can engage with our legal team here and make an assessment. 15:35:49 .. If you tell us that everyone who contributed is in the CG and the WG then we don't have 15:35:50 .. an issue. 15:37:46 pal has joined #tt 15:40:18 Topic: TTWG Charter 15:40:36 Philippe: A comment - the agreement you described before is that if you do not have Rec 15:40:52 .. of WebVTT by the end of the next Charter then you would drop it. If the theory is correct 15:41:06 .. that WebVTT is used as an input format rather than a native implementation then it would 15:41:16 .. be no surprise if that happens. 15:41:43 David: One question is if you would accept two implementations from Apple as being 15:41:50 .. independent, because this is in fact the case. 15:42:16 Philippe: Interesting question, I don't know the answer but I can ask and get back to you. 15:42:58 Nigel: I have asked this recently, as an issue on the Process. 15:45:49 Philippe: Yes, you would need to have some evidence that the two teams creating the implementations 15:46:05 .. did so by interpreting the specification directly without any other communication. 15:46:57 Nigel: Any other questions or comments on the Charter? 15:47:12 Philippe: Not as far as I know. Thank you by the way for providing the draft Charter. 15:47:56 Topic: Travis 15:48:19 Philippe: I'm in communication with Travis to try to make the pull request smoother. 15:48:43 .. I do not know why the repositories have been deactivated. We are reaching peaks of 60 concurrent 15:48:55 .. jobs on travis at the moment and it keeps increasing. They are doing some of our jobs 15:49:10 .. in batches and they can get delayed before they are even started. So there's both a delay 15:49:25 .. and then a long queue before they run. So the plan is to conduct an experiment on travis 15:49:37 .. to give them a bit of money to provide small guarantees and see how it affects our jobs 15:49:51 .. being run. In parallel I've been talking to the web platform people because they are 15:50:03 .. consuming more than half our jobs, just for testing purposes, and we cannot separate 15:50:13 .. them because they are on the same organisation on GitHub. We're potentially considering 15:50:24 .. moving them to a "separate" organisation on GitHub because that project is going to 15:50:39 .. grow more and more. Then we can separate testing from production of recommendations 15:50:53 .. more easily. Every time a pull request on WPT is done it triggers 12 concurrent jobs. 15:51:00 Nigel: Thanks for that. 15:51:11 Topic: Audio Profile of TTML2 15:51:24 Nigel: I've been in discussion with various organisations (we're up to 12 right now) about 15:51:39 .. setting up a CG to produce a profile of TTML2 for audio description, and hope that will 15:51:46 .. go ahead in the next few weeks. 15:52:23 s/web platform people/web platform tests people/ 15:53:11 .. Just noting it here in case people want to join. 15:53:16 Pierre: That's in a CG not the WG? 15:54:24 Nigel: Yes, and hopefully bring it to a future iteration of the TTWG Charter when there is 15:55:09 .. a document to work on. This is partly about WG mechanics - getting onto the Charter 15:55:35 .. without a document as the basis of a specification seems harder these days, so this way 15:55:51 .. we can have easy participation from the interested parties and then there's a path towards 15:56:11 .. getting to Rec later, albeit one that requires more W3C membership in the case that the 15:56:16 .. contributors are not currently members. 15:57:09 dsinger_ has joined #tt 15:57:43 Pierre: And the domain is all applications? 15:57:56 Nigel: Yes, not only broadcast, also web, and not making any assumptions about where in 15:58:03 .. the distribution chain any audio mixing might happen. 15:58:06 Pierre: Thanks. 15:58:52 David: What I did with WebVTT is I got a FSA signed by the CG participants - if you're 15:59:40 .. expecting them to give IPR away for free then they don't get anything back. 16:00:05 Nigel: Right, and I've highlighted this to the participants right from the beginning. 16:00:14 David: It took me months to get this for WebVTT. 16:00:58 Pierre: Yes, when the legal team looks at it things could take longer. 16:01:56 Topic: Meeting Close 16:02:02 Nigel: Thanks everyone! [adjourns meeting] 16:02:15 rrsagent, make minutes 16:02:15 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2018/03/29-tt-minutes.html nigel 16:12:17 s/.. done. We were waiting/David: done. We were waiting 16:18:55 rrsagent, make minutes 16:18:55 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2018/03/29-tt-minutes.html nigel 16:22:53 scribeOptions: -final -noEmbedDiagnostics 16:22:55 rrsagent, make minutes 16:22:55 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2018/03/29-tt-minutes.html nigel 17:25:55 Zakim has left #tt