14:00:14 RRSAgent has joined #tt 14:00:14 logging to https://www.w3.org/2018/04/05-tt-irc 14:00:16 RRSAgent, make logs public 14:00:16 Zakim has joined #tt 14:00:18 Meeting: Timed Text Working Group Teleconference 14:00:18 Date: 05 April 2018 14:00:35 plh has joined #tt 14:00:42 cyril has joined #tt 14:01:00 Log: https://www.w3.org/2018/04/05-tt-irc 14:01:08 scribe: nigel 14:01:11 Present: Pierre, Nigel 14:01:12 Chair: Nigel 14:01:23 Present+ Philippe, Thierry 14:01:35 regrets from me 14:02:28 Regrets: Andreas, Cyril 14:02:40 Topic: This meeting 14:03:46 Nigel: Today we have TTWG Charter, TTML1 3rd Ed CR, a couple of issues on TTML2, 14:04:33 .. request to transition IMSC 1.1 to CR, and I think Dave Singer sent something to say he 14:04:47 .. wanted to record the resolution to publish WebVTT as CR today. 14:04:53 Present+ Glenn 14:05:29 Nigel: Anything else for the agenda? 14:05:46 Thierry: The different version of IMSC 1.0.1 CR + PR plus IMSC 1.1 FPWD were fixed in place 14:05:56 .. to have the correct W3C Document licence. 14:05:59 Nigel: Thank you! 14:06:02 [1] IMSC 1.0.1 CR https://www.w3.org/TR/2017/CR-ttml-imsc1.0.1-20170713/ 14:06:02 [2] IMSC 1.0.1 PR https://www.w3.org/TR/2018/PR-ttml-imsc1.0.1-20180227/ 14:06:02 [2] IMSC 1.1 FPWD https://www.w3.org/TR/2017/WD-ttml-imsc1.1-20171017/ 14:06:20 pal has joined #tt 14:06:22 Pierre: There's a pull request on respec.js to fix that bug waiting for your approval Philippe. 14:07:33 group: [nothing else for the agenda] 14:07:41 Topic: TTWG Charter 14:08:00 Nigel: I just received an email from Coralie notifying AC and Chairs that the TTWG charter 14:08:11 .. has been extended by 2 months until 31 May 2018. 14:09:18 Topic: TTML1 3rd edition CR 14:09:54 Nigel: I think the SOTD has been updated. 14:10:04 Pierre: The CR branch is ready to go modulo an update to the publication date. 14:10:14 https://rawgit.com/w3c/ttml1/TTML1-3ED-CR1-build/index.html 14:10:31 Pierre: You can use the head of that branch or I can generate it for whoever needs it. 14:11:47 Nigel: What do we do next to close this off? We made the transition request already, and 14:12:37 .. have made the change to the SOTD. 14:12:51 Philippe: You want to proceed to CR before the tests have been written? 14:12:52 Nigel: Yes 14:13:04 Philippe: Then you should reply to the last email to say exactly that. 14:13:07 Nigel: I will do that. 14:13:42 Nigel: If he says "yes" then when would the exit date be? 14:13:54 Philippe: If he says yes, you've passed the review period so the document could be published 14:13:58 .. on Tuesday. 14:14:16 Thierry: Looking at the SOTD we have added that we need two implementations and have 14:14:29 .. linked to the implementation report. Should we emphasise focus only on testing what 14:14:56 .. we have added in that edition? The statement seems unclear to me, maybe that the 14:15:09 .. implementation will address only the changes made in this edition. 14:15:20 s/tion/tion report 14:15:36 Pierre: The changes are already listed. 14:15:46 Thierry: I want to emphasise that the focus is restricted. 14:15:58 .. Add something like the implementation report will be restricted only to the changes 14:16:03 .. introduced in the 3rd edition. 14:16:07 Pierre: Sure, I can write that up. 14:16:19 .. I'll do that as soon as possible. 14:16:34 Nigel: If we publish on Tuesday then when is the earliest exit date? 14:16:49 Thierry: We should have at least a month, so May 15th, say. 14:17:05 Philippe: May 29 for the PR, if you send the transition request on May 22. So deadline for 14:17:07 https://w3c.github.io/spec-releases/milestones/?cr=2018-04-17 14:17:13 Philippe: comments would be May 15. 14:17:30 Nigel: Great, so May 15 is the date to put in the SOTD, thank you. 14:19:03 .. Pierre, when you tell me that's fixed in the SOTD then I'll respond re the transition request. 14:20:13 Topic: IMSC 1.1 14:20:43 Nigel: We already made a resolution to request transition to CR: 14:20:54 -> https://www.w3.org/2018/03/22-tt-minutes.html#resolution01 Resolution to request transition to CR 14:21:23 Nigel: That resolution requires us to have resolved the issues open at that time. 14:21:27 .. Have they been resolved? 14:21:42 Pierre: All the issues outstanding at that point have been closed and resolved. 14:21:55 .. There are 3 issues outstanding on IMSC 1.1. Two are purely editorial and can be safely 14:22:07 .. deferred to post-CR, and are related, making a table easier to read. 14:22:23 .. There's another issue I found yesterday, and I suspect there will be more. The question 14:22:35 .. is do we publish a new WD today or a CR today? I think publishing a CR is a much 14:22:47 .. clearer indication of the state of the document so I'd rather go with that and a second CR. 14:22:56 .. I'd still recommend proceeding with a CR1. 14:23:14 Nigel: Can we fix the issue in the next week or so? 14:24:05 Pierre: Probably. It's implementation experience. 14:24:09 Nigel: How substantive is it? 14:24:14 Pierre: Pretty minor, but substantive. 14:24:32 -> https://github.com/w3c/imsc/issues/366 tts:position should be allowed on region only imsc#366 14:24:51 Pierre: I don't expect the scope of IMSC 1.1 to change, or major features to be added or removed. 14:25:18 Nigel: Seems like the thing to do is to move to CR on the basis of the resolution we already made. 14:25:25 .. Any other views? 14:25:33 Glenn: No objection. 14:26:05 Nigel: In that case I'm going to declare that we have consensus to request transition. 14:26:14 .. Thierry, please could you prepare the transition request? 14:26:17 Thierry: Okay. 14:27:00 Nigel: Anything else on IMSC? 14:27:13 Pierre: No, but I'm waiting for respec to be fixed so I can update the document licence. 14:27:53 Topic: TTML2 14:28:06 Nigel: We have 3 issues and pull requests marked as Agenda. 14:28:47 Topic: Remove @condition from animation, head, layout, resources, and styling elements. ttml2#704 14:28:56 github: https://github.com/w3c/ttml2/issues/704 14:30:40 Nigel: The question here is if there is any use case or requirement for conditionalising the 14:30:55 .. tt element itself? I think Glenn and I agree that it is not needed. I just wanted to check if 14:30:59 .. there are any other views. 14:31:14 Glenn: Note that condition is still permitted on the body element, so some of the possible 14:31:38 .. use cases for conditionalising tt are based on that. 14:31:51 s/based on that/still possible using that. 14:32:43 Nigel: Just to check, if we put condition on body does that imply that there can be more than 14:32:58 .. one body element, and that one must be selected prior to validation? How would that work with an XSD validator? 14:33:12 Glenn: No, there would only be one, and it could merely be excluded or included. 14:33:20 Nigel: Oh I see, harsh, but that works! 14:33:55 Glenn: Can I mark this as discussed and agreed? 14:34:00 Nigel: I think so, yes. 14:34:26 SUMMARY: WG agrees to implement this issue, noting that body element can still be conditionally excluded. 14:34:49 Nigel: I will approve the pull request then. 14:35:31 Topic: Animate @calcMode value displace{,d} should read paced. ttml2#699 14:35:39 github: https://github.com/w3c/ttml2/issues/699 14:35:57 Glenn: Apparently we had a discrepancy between the schema and the spec in regard to the 14:36:09 .. "paced" value of the calcmode. There was incorrect and incomplete schema support that 14:36:19 .. wasn't mentioned in the spec. There was never any discussion or proposal to exclude it 14:36:32 .. so my conclusion was that it was not intended to be excluded and it needs to be fixed 14:36:42 .. in the schema and added to the spec. 14:36:56 .. If it turns out there are insufficient implementations then we could remove it. 14:37:11 .. I plan to add a pull request to make the animation features more functionally oriented 14:37:32 .. than syntactically oriented. We need one targeting paced and spline modes. That leaves 14:37:50 .. two other modes, linear and discrete. Linear is the default, discrete turns it into the same 14:38:00 .. as set semantics with multiple entries. 14:38:20 .. If you're going to support animate at all you should definitely support linear mode, and 14:38:31 .. there's no harm in requiring support for discrete at all since we already have it via set. 14:38:43 .. My thinking is that the default feature identifier should translate to mandatory support 14:38:55 .. for linear and discrete, however the other two, paced and spline add a fair amount of 14:39:07 .. additional complexity and attributes so I think they should have their own feature designators. 14:39:25 .. Key times is required by both, and key splines by spline mode only. I plan to open another 14:39:43 .. pull request to orient along those latter two. 14:40:15 Nigel: You said non-discussion implied not excluding, but you could just as well say that 14:40:22 .. non-discussion meant non-inclusion. 14:40:32 Glenn: It looks like an accidental exclusion not an intentional one. 14:41:45 Nigel: Okay let's not dwell on it, I think we only reviewed the spec in front of us. 14:42:06 .. Anyhow does anyone have any views about introducing paced? It seems like good functionality to me. 14:42:14 group: [no further views] 14:42:25 Glenn: Does anyone object to adding the feature designators for paced and spline? 14:42:29 Nigel: Seems like a good idea to me. 14:42:35 group: [no objections] 14:42:48 Glenn: I've already implemented validation. 14:43:22 RESOLUTION: Add paced calcmode and feature designators for paced and spline calcmodes. 14:43:42 Topic: Prioritise loaded fonts when selecting font. ttml2#675 14:43:49 github: https://github.com/w3c/ttml2/issues/675 14:44:57 Glenn: I would be happy to add normative language that documents the semantics that I 14:45:10 .. think we want to enforce, which is that the entirety of a font resource, downloaded or not, 14:45:26 .. must be available at presentation time to be used or hold that it exists for the purpose of use, 14:45:41 .. in terms of evaluating a list of font families that are specified by the author in the fontFamily 14:45:53 .. property. Right now XSL and TTML say nothing about what should be done by an 14:46:05 .. implementation in terms of loading either locally or remotely available fonts and use 14:46:16 .. during the presentation but there is a presentation I think by the authors and implementers 14:46:28 .. that if you are going to use a font then it had better be available, or you should move on 14:46:42 .. down the list. Right now that behaviour is implementation defined because it is not defined 14:46:47 .. in XSL and not really in CSS either. 14:47:03 .. The CSS language may have some relevance to incremental redisplay or relayout in browsers. 14:48:11 Nigel: I think that's bypassing the issue though, what happens if the font becomes available 14:48:16 .. part way through the presentation? 14:48:25 Glenn: That's implementation dependent. 14:49:08 .. Right now there's no backup from the spec. If eventually every implementation uses 14:49:19 .. lazy loading, then maybe we could say something in the future about it, but I still think 14:49:29 .. it is in the domain of implementation choices and goes down into the details we should 14:49:45 .. not be talking about in my opinion. There are a lot of other ways to optimise implementation 14:49:55 .. without spec support, for example rendering text to pixels prior to its use. 14:50:50 Nigel: Okay, any other views about this? I think it could impact CSS based renderers like imsc.js. 14:51:03 Pierre: I haven't looked at this at all. Today imsc.js just copied tts:fontFamily to the CSS 14:51:14 .. style and lets the CSS implementation do whatever it does. I don't see that changing. 14:52:38 .. I've not run into this issue and noone has complained about it so far. My inclination would 14:52:48 .. be to leave it as an implementation detail until somebody runs into a problem. 14:53:15 .. One option would be to do nothing now but if it comes up then come back to this issue. 14:53:25 Glenn: We can always close it and mark as ttml.next for posterity. 14:53:49 SUMMARY: Take no action for now, mark as ttml.next and close. 14:54:03 github-bot, end topic 14:54:53 Topic: IMSC vNext Requirements 14:55:01 Pierre: There's one pull request awaiting your review... 14:56:07 Nigel: Okay I'll look at it. 14:56:13 .. Thank you! 14:57:15 Pierre: Similarly #16 14:57:44 Nigel: Ah yes, you're answer https://github.com/w3c/imsc-vnext-reqs/pull/16#discussion_r179027816 seems reasonable. 14:57:51 Pierre: Okay I'll make a clarification change. 14:58:09 Pierre: I went back and looked at the Netflix submission on Japanese required features. 14:58:24 .. It said only rubyReserve="auto" was required. It seems that this was never really implemented 14:58:38 .. in the requirements, so I've asked Cyril to review it. The impact is that at some point 14:58:49 .. down the line for IMSC 1.1 we may want to constrain that feature. I don't see that as a 14:58:51 .. major issue. 14:59:20 Nigel: There are two ways it could go: either nobody uses the other values, so there's no 14:59:33 .. problem applying the constraint, or other values are used, in which case we should not 14:59:37 .. impose the additional constraint. 14:59:57 Pierre: To Cyril's point, the risk is that in order to support rubyReserve="auto" you already 15:00:02 .. have to support two of the underlying key words. 15:00:12 .. Anyway I'm waiting for Cyril's opinion on that. 15:00:43 Nigel: Is that all on IMSC vNext reqs? 15:01:07 Topic: IMSC v1.0.1 Rec obsoleting IMSC v1? 15:01:25 Pierre: We have to decide as a group if when v1.0.1 becomes a Rec we obsolete IMSC 1. 15:01:51 .. It makes it easier for the W3 team to implement the obsoletion if it is part of the Rec 15:01:54 .. transition. 15:02:08 .. My recommendation is, because IMSC 1.0.1 is completely compatible with IMSC 1 by design 15:02:27 .. and clarifies some IMSC 1 ambiguities then we should obsolete IMSC 1. 15:02:47 PROPOSAL: When publishing IMSC 1.0.1 Rec, mark IMSC 1 as Obsolete 15:03:02 Glenn: Question: I think Superceded is an option as well as Obsoleted. Which do you plan to use? 15:03:31 Thierry: Superceded is replacement of a spec by another, so that's probably the one we should use. 15:03:42 .. Obsolete is a spec you don't want people to implement any more. 15:03:55 Nigel: Sounds like Superceded is for us here. 15:04:00 Pierre: Yes I like that better. 15:04:09 PROPOSAL: When publishing IMSC 1.0.1 Rec, mark IMSC 1 as Superseded 15:04:39 Glenn: I think that's what was meant in the first place. 15:04:49 Pierre: I'm reading the Process document... 15:05:03 ... I don't think we want anyone to implement IMSC 1 at this point. I think I'd always say 15:05:09 .. always use IMSC 1.0.1 15:05:28 Glenn: That means it's superseded. Obsolete means we don't have a substitute for it. 15:06:11 Nigel: The Process says "A Superseded Recommendation is a specification that has been replaced by a newer version that the W3C recommends for new adoption. " 15:07:07 -> https://www.w3.org/2018/Process-20180201/#RecsW3C W3C Recommendation description in the Process 15:08:24 RESOLUTION: When publishing IMSC 1.0.1 Rec, mark IMSC 1 as Superseded 15:09:17 Nigel: The WBS for IMSC 1.0.1 has closed, with no votes against. When can we expect a 15:09:23 .. transition to Rec to be requested by the Director? 15:09:30 Thierry: I will have to chek. 15:09:34 s/ek/eck 15:10:29 Topic: WebVTT 15:11:18 Pierre: Can you share with the WG for the record, as Chair, what the plan is for CR transition? The folks at Movielabs want to know. 15:11:45 Nigel: I'm going to duck that - the Chairing responsibilities split that we have agreed is that 15:12:03 .. Dave Singer looks after WebVTT and I look after the TTML-based work, so I can't and don't want 15:12:07 .. to speak for him. 15:12:28 Thierry: Are you referring to the pull request about the relation between the CG and the WG? 15:12:31 Pierre: Yes. 15:12:44 Thierry: That statement has been there for years, I have not changed it. 15:12:57 Pierre: I don't dispute that, I'm paying attention now because it's getting to CR. 15:14:32 Nigel: My expectation was that Dave would join today to record the resolution to transition to CR. 15:14:50 Thierry: I guess the deadline for publication has been extended along with the Charter, so 15:14:54 .. there's a little bit more time. 15:15:56 .. The Charter is under review by W3M and then will go to AC. There's a bit of time there. 15:16:12 .. The Charter incorporating or not incorporating WebVTT should be the final version 15:16:22 .. submitted to the AC. 15:16:39 Nigel: Ah, I see, that makes sense. If hypothetically we thought that WebVTT is not going 15:16:51 .. to be in the next Charter then publishing as a CR would seem perverse, since there would 15:16:56 .. be no route out of CR. 15:17:51 Topic: Meeting close 15:18:08 Nigel: Next week, I'm on vacation, so unable to Chair. If someone wants to Chair (including 15:18:16 .. a Chair of course) then please go ahead. 15:18:22 Pierre: Regrets from me too. 15:18:29 Nigel: Andreas has also sent his regrets. 15:19:03 Nigel: Given 3 absentees I think we should cancel next week's meeting, so our next call 15:19:07 .. will be on 19th April. 15:20:44 .. We haven't much time to decide on a f2f - the proposal is to meet in advance of the IRT 15:20:51 .. subtitle symposium on 22nd and 23rd May. 15:20:58 Pierre: I would be reluctant to attend. 15:21:09 Glenn: I also would not be able to attend. 15:21:20 Nigel: Okay then it doesn't make any sense to go ahead with that. 15:22:43 Pierre: I'll be in Berlin w/c July 9, so if we want a F2F in Europe that could be a possibility. 15:23:07 .. The weekend before or week after maybe. 15:23:35 .. Week of June 18 I'd be in Toronto, if that would help. 15:23:48 Nigel: Half way could work, if we had a host. 15:23:54 Pierre: I'm just throwing ideas in. 15:24:06 .. Hopefully we won't need to meet in person though, I'm hopeful we can deal with this 15:24:09 .. electronically. 15:24:11 Nigel: Me too. 15:24:39 Pierre: If we want to target July I need to book travel in the next three weeks. 15:24:52 Nigel: Okay let's come back to this in 2 weeks and see if we can confirm. 15:28:19 .. By the way for TPAC I've filled in the survey as any two consecutive days, avoiding 15:28:30 .. clash with M+E IG, and requesting joint meeting with CSS WG. 15:29:02 Nigel: Thanks everyone, next meeting in 2 weeks. [Adjourns meeting] 15:29:08 rrsagent, make minutes 15:29:08 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2018/04/05-tt-minutes.html nigel 15:40:00 s/Okay let's not dwell on it, I think we only reviewed the spec in front of us./I think we only reviewed the spec in front of us. But let's not dwell on it. 15:40:03 rrsagent, make minutes 15:40:03 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2018/04/05-tt-minutes.html nigel 15:43:17 scribeOptions: -final -noEmbedDiagnostics 15:43:18 rrsagent, make minutes 15:43:18 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2018/04/05-tt-minutes.html nigel 16:30:41 Zakim has left #tt