14:00:39 RRSAgent has joined #tt 14:00:39 logging to https://www.w3.org/2018/05/03-tt-irc 14:00:41 RRSAgent, make logs public 14:01:54 Zakim has joined #tt 14:01:54 Meeting: Timed Text Working Group Teleconference 14:01:54 Date: 03 May 2018 14:01:54 mike has joined #tt 14:02:06 Log: https://www.w3.org/2018/05/03-tt-irc 14:05:13 scribe: nigel 14:05:43 atai2 has joined #tt 14:05:44 Present: Philippe, Andreas, Cyril, Glenn, Mike, Pierre, Nigel 14:05:48 Regrets: Thierry 14:05:50 Chair: Nigel 14:05:55 Topic: This meeting 14:05:57 plh has joined #tt 14:07:45 Nigel: TTWG Charter, TTML1, TTML2, IMSC, IMSC vNext Requirements, that's about all I'm expecting. 14:08:22 .. Any particular topics to cover, or other business? 14:08:35 Pierre: Specifically on TTML2 it would be good to discuss schedule for CR2 because that 14:08:44 .. will also drive the schedule for IMSC 1.1 CR2. 14:09:00 Nigel: Yes, we discussed that recently but let's return to it. 14:09:57 Pierre: Admin q re IMSC "master" 14:10:07 Nigel: OK let's bring that to the IMSC agenda item. 14:10:23 Topic: TTWG Charter 14:10:48 pal has joined #tt 14:10:49 Nigel: I'm not aware of any development on the two open issues over the last week. 14:11:05 Philippe: Nothing more - I'm aware of the decision timeline issue Nigel raised and the 14:11:23 .. timeline before CR that Pierre raised. Otherwise we are on track. 14:11:36 .. Pierre you might want to look at the alternative proposal that Nigel made on GitHub, either 14:11:50 .. now or offline. I just want to close the loop by May 17. Shall we try offline and if necessary 14:11:52 .. discuss it. 14:12:07 Pierre: Nigel, what was your end point? 14:12:28 Nigel: I was really trying to address all the concerns raised in the issue thread with a solution 14:12:42 .. that might meed everyone's needs, so I'd be happy with it as is, or with the optional parts 14:12:44 --> https://github.com/w3c/charter-timed-text/issues/28 14:12:54 Nigel: (though both the optional parts would be needed) 14:14:48 .. [describes the issue comment and rationale] 14:14:59 Pierre: The minimal change would be to change the must to a should. 14:15:01 Nigel: OK 14:15:18 Pierre: I also really want to prevent people thinking they have 3 months before making comments. 14:15:33 Philippe: Alright, I'll open a pull request to track the changes we're looking at making. 14:16:32 Nigel: A question for you Philippe, if the call for review has comments asking for these 14:16:49 .. issues to be resolved, are you able to make the changes without going round a new 14:16:52 .. review cycle? 14:17:01 Philippe: Yes, we would not need another review cycle. 14:17:15 .. As it is I'm expecting to get approval for the new Charter after the AC meeting in May. 14:17:27 .. I'll create a pull request and put Nigel and Pierre as a reviewer - others interested can 14:17:31 .. ping me or follow the pull request. 14:18:00 Topic: TTML1 14:18:30 Nigel: I'm not aware of any issues to discuss. Obviously we will need some work for the 14:18:33 .. implementation report. 14:19:02 Philippe: Did I start work on superseding TTML1? 14:19:05 Pierre: You mean for IMSC? 14:19:20 Nigel: I think TTML1 3rd Ed superseding 2nd Ed? 14:19:25 Philippe: That will happen automatically. 14:19:34 s/will/did/ 14:19:36 Nigel: OK let's return to the IMSC superseding at the IMSC agenda topic 14:20:00 s/did/will/ 14:20:13 https://www.w3.org/TR/2013/REC-ttml1-20130924/ 14:20:20 s/will/did/ 14:20:45 Philippe: Because you followed the revised Rec process, by publishing the CR you automatically 14:20:51 .. outdated the previous version which was the Rec. 14:21:30 Nigel: The implementation report page is currently empty of tests. 14:21:40 -> https://www.w3.org/wiki/TTML1-3ED_implementation_report TTML1 3rd Ed Implementation Report 14:21:54 cyril has joined #tt 14:22:12 Pierre: This is on my to do list (to contribute tests generated in the course of IMSC work) 14:22:16 Nigel: OK thanks 14:22:36 RRSAgent: pointer 14:22:36 See https://www.w3.org/2018/05/03-tt-irc#T14-22-36 14:23:03 Nigel: One issue was raised recently, to clarify the default value of blur radius 14:23:23 .. Just to check, are we in agreement that the default value of blur radius should be zero? 14:23:36 Glenn: That's what it is in practice, it was just an omission that we did not specify that. 14:23:56 github: https://github.com/w3c/ttml1/issues/351 14:24:30 RESOLUTION: WG agrees the default blur radius is zero, and it should be clarified. 14:24:41 github-bot, end topic 14:25:18 Topic: TTML2 14:25:23 action-443? 14:25:23 action-443 -- Glenn Adams to Prepare a document showing mapping arib ruby extension features to ttml2 for use as a liaison document to arib. -- due 2018-04-26 -- OPEN 14:25:23 http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/tracker/actions/443 14:26:21 Glenn: I'd like to push out the due date to approximately CR2 publication date. 14:26:28 .. Say mid-late June. 14:26:50 .. By the way that is my working target for CR2 right now, for publication, which means 14:26:56 .. having it for the group around 1st June. 14:27:46 Nigel: I've updated the due date for action-443 to 15th June. 14:27:49 Glenn: Thank you. 14:28:09 Topic: TTML2 publication dates 14:28:25 Glenn: I used Philippe's tool to check on schedules and, originally, I was hoping for 14:28:35 .. completion earlier than is now going to be possible according to that tool. 14:28:49 .. To get to Rec by August 1st would require CR2 publication a week from today, which is 14:29:05 .. not possible. So if I push it out a bit and try to get to PR by August 1st then that would 14:29:16 .. be a publishing date of June 26 for CR2. 14:29:31 Philippe: That goes to August 7 for publication 14:29:44 Glenn: I put in a date for PR and it came back with June 26. 14:29:50 Philippe: You could be right, will check. 14:29:57 Glenn: Or July 31st may be what worked. 14:30:03 https://w3c.github.io/spec-releases/milestones/?pr=2018-07-31&noFPWD=true 14:30:10 Philippe: June 19 CR2 for July 31 PR (for publication) 14:30:21 Glenn: We need CR2 around 3rd week June for CR2. 14:30:33 .. So I think that's feasible though aggressive. I'm going to be full time on TTML2 starting 14:30:50 .. Monday, so I'll get a lot of things done over the next few weeks and try to drive to a 14:31:04 .. reviewable copy of the document by end of May which would give us a few weeks to get 14:31:09 .. to a publishing date. 14:31:41 Philippe: You need a transition date of June 12 to publish on June 19 and because you 14:31:51 .. have a 10 day decision review period, you need the call for consensus sent no later than 14:32:07 .. June 2, which is a Saturday. So you need to decide to publish CR2 on May 31. 14:32:15 Glenn: That gives 10 days review by the group after that. 14:32:18 Philippe: Yes 14:32:32 Present+ Andreas 14:32:46 Glenn: It's definitely aggressive, but achievable. The issues are fewer and less complicated 14:32:55 .. than what we dealt with in the ramp up to CR1. 14:33:09 Cyril: Glenn, as a 2nd Editor I can offer to edit if it speeds the process, or to offer an Editors 14:33:21 .. meeting if we need, to speed up the editing. Let me know if you need that. Any others 14:33:27 .. could join also. 14:34:05 .. Secondly, solving all the issues for CR is one thing, but if we get more implementation 14:34:27 .. feedback that requires substantive changes we may need a CR3. 14:34:37 Glenn: We can remove at risk features in PR directly. 14:34:53 Cyril: We should encourage implementation feedback soon to reduce that risk. 14:35:13 Glenn: We're seeing implementation activity, but I think tests would be helpful, so one of 14:35:29 .. my priorities is to start pushing tests to match the features. 14:35:41 .. I need to take action on that quickly. 14:35:43 Nigel: +1 14:35:57 Glenn: I have a fairly large suite of validation and presentation tests so we'll get those 14:36:00 .. posted starting next week. 14:36:17 .. Then additional tests may be needed and I expect more to be added as we drive to CR2. 14:36:48 Nigel: Will we put the tests in the ttml2 repo or in a separate one? 14:36:59 Glenn: I plan to put them in the ttml2 repo like we did with ttml1 14:37:37 Nigel: Should we raise an issue per feature for adding the test? 14:37:41 Glenn: Please no 14:37:44 Cyril: Too many issues 14:37:56 .. We can list them on a wiki page with a table so we can see progress. 14:38:02 Glenn: I don't mind an umbrella issue. 14:38:34 Nigel: I'm not going to force it, but I think you're missing an opportunity to track work in 14:38:43 .. a better way, with a pull request for each test being added. 14:39:06 Glenn: I expect a big batch to be submitted. After that, then per test type issues might work. 14:39:09 Nigel: OK 14:39:56 Nigel: Thanks for the editor's meeting offer Cyril, if you do go ahead with that please let 14:40:04 .. us know so if anyone wants to dial in then they can. 14:41:40 Topic: TTML2 textShadow direction 14:41:42 github: https://github.com/w3c/ttml2/issues/723 14:41:57 Pierre: Just to explain how I found this issue and why I raised it... 14:42:10 ... TTML2 tts:textShadow allows multiple shadows to be created and each shadow has a 14:42:22 .. positional offset with respect to the text. That offset as it stands today is not specified 14:42:37 .. with respect to horizontal and vertical, but relative to the block and inline progression directions, 14:42:45 .. the writing mode. That came as a surprise to me for a couple of reasons. 14:43:04 .. 1. It doesn't match what CSS does, and I was mislead by the spec saying it does match CSS. 14:43:12 .. On careful review I realised that is not the case. 14:43:25 .. That's not necessarily fatal, but it is surprising and a pain. 14:43:38 .. 2. The shadow direction seems completely unrelated to the writing direction from an 14:43:53 .. aesthetic perspective. At a high level I would expect it to be placed the same for all text 14:44:07 .. on view regardless of the direction of writing. As it stands today you'd have to create 14:44:22 .. different styles to deal with the different writing modes, if they are mixed in a document. 14:44:37 .. 3. writing direction needs to be propagated when computing the shadow so you know 14:44:51 .. which actual absolute offset needs to be calculated. In TTML1 only padding had that 14:45:06 .. characteristic, but it only applied to padding, so it was only a little awkward. This is more 14:45:23 .. awkward. For all those reasons I thought it was surprising. Also border-radii is like this. 14:45:37 .. To me, those properties are unrelated to the writing direction, so I want to discuss if we 14:45:42 .. really want to do this in TTML2. 14:45:55 Glenn: My only surprise is that Pierre is surprised, for a couple of reasons. 14:46:15 .. 1. propagation of writing mode - that is true for other reasons than textShadow, for example 14:46:28 .. every paragraph needs to use writing mode to determine the default directionality for bidi 14:46:43 .. and in general bidi resolution requires propagation of writing mode down the tree. That's 14:46:51 .. a presupposition of XSL-FO implementations, for example. 14:47:07 Pierre: That's propagated through tts:direction which is inherited so it is not comparable. 14:47:27 Glenn: We can dispute that separately. 14:47:44 .. 2. text-shadow in CSS and other word processing programmes and captioning systems 14:47:58 .. in the field (that I'm familiar with) treat it as a typographic effect not an image processing 14:48:12 .. effect. Pierre's comments are relevant if you think of it in terms of a shadow deriving from 14:48:25 .. a light source shining on the root container. On that basis then Pierre has a good argument. 14:48:40 .. My contention is that text shadow like text outline, font style etc is a typographic property 14:48:49 .. and is specific to individual text not globally applied. 14:49:06 .. 3. One reason we are different from CSS, not just here, is we followed XSL-FO to make 14:49:20 .. use of writing mode relative properties for directional semantics, which we did consistenyl 14:49:43 .. across the board. CSS did not do that from the beginning. We consciously and explicitly 14:49:57 .. in early TTML days made the decision to use writing mode relative properties. This is 14:50:03 .. not different in any way from my perspective. 14:50:23 .. We could make an exception in this case and do something different. That would require 14:50:30 q+ 14:50:32 .. authors to think about it and implementers too. 14:50:45 .. Pierre's arg is that the difference with CSS creates confusion. I'm more interested in 14:50:53 q+ 14:51:06 q+ 14:51:08 .. maintaining internal consistency with TTML than with semantic consistency with CSS. 14:51:37 ack cyril 14:51:49 Cyril: To clarify, how would an author create the second example with the current spec? 14:52:25 .. How do you produce the right hand image in the issue?\ 14:52:32 Pierre: Just change the 10% to -10%. 14:52:36 s/\/ 14:53:07 Pierre: The author needs a different style for tblr vs tbrl. 14:53:13 ack atai2 14:53:19 ack atai 14:53:40 Andreas: Two questions. 1. The pictures you're showing - the left one for vertical text, 14:53:45 .. is this how text shadows should be applied? 14:53:55 Pierre: My understanding is the left image is how it would apply. 14:54:05 Glenn: That's how it would look today on a word processor that does shadows. 14:54:24 .. A positive offset for the tbrl line would be the standard positive interpretation of offset. 14:54:49 .. It is offset from the before to the after direction of the line. And towards the end in this case. 14:55:26 Andreas: 2. Pierre, so what is the alternative or the counter proposal? 14:55:41 Pierre: To do what CSS and XSL do, to calculate the offset always wrt the horizontal and vertical 14:55:58 .. directions. Positive vertical is towards the bottom and positive horizontal is towards the right. 14:56:15 Andreas: What is the negative impact of Pierre's proposal? If it is closer to CSS, that is also 14:56:27 .. the direction we want to go. 14:56:42 Glenn: [reviewing the XSL, which was based on the CSS2 definition] 14:56:57 .. I guess I was incorrect and Pierre has pointed that out, thinking that it was writing mode 14:57:11 .. relative in XSL but it looks like they did not make that change there, unlike border and padding and some other things. 14:57:23 .. So there's an argument to be made for consistency with XSL we should do as suggested 14:57:39 .. by Pierre. The impact is minimal at this stage of implementation. Pierre is probably 14:57:56 .. further ahead in terms of presentation implementation. If we leave as is then we need 14:58:08 .. at least a note pointing out this issue and warning the reader of it. If we adopt Pierre's 14:58:22 .. position we also need a note for those who assume the current way. 14:58:34 .. I would not object to following XSL and CSS and making it non-writing-mode relative. 14:59:04 Nigel: Does anyone prefer the current approach? 14:59:18 Glenn: I prefer it because there's less editorial work. We should also look at border-radii 14:59:22 .. as well. 14:59:33 Cyril: I checked the text, and only border-radii is affected. 14:59:40 .. Is any other property dependent on writing mode? 14:59:47 Glenn: Padding maybe? 14:59:55 Pierre: The ship has sailed on padding, I'm not suggesting a change there. 15:00:05 Cyril: I would agree with changing border-radii also. 15:00:14 Glenn: border-radii is not in XSL. It was introduced in CSS3. 15:00:27 Cyril: There's font shear but it makes sense to link that to writing mode. 15:01:15 Pierre: Everything that's text related it seems that border radii is the only one. 15:01:25 Glenn: I reviewed this yesterday and was surprised there were not more places where 15:01:37 .. writing mode relative directions are referred to. Nowhere do we call out the set of 15:01:50 .. properties that are writing-mode relative. Under the definition of writing mode it might 15:02:02 .. be useful to add an informative list pointing readers to that, or as part of the prose. 15:04:09 RESOLUTION: Change tts:textShadow to be writing mode independent 15:04:50 RESOLUTION: Change border-radii to be writing mode independent 15:05:09 github-bot, end topic 15:06:39 Topic: IMSC 15:07:05 Nigel: We published https://www.w3.org/TR/ttml-imsc1.1/ - well done and thank you everyone! 15:07:15 Pierre: Nigel can you approve the 1.1 CR pull request? 15:07:17 Nigel: Will do. 15:07:55 Pierre: I verified this is what has been published. 15:08:27 Nigel: Thank you I've just approved it on that basis. 15:08:31 Pierre: Thank you. 15:09:00 q+ 15:09:03 .. We've just published IMSC 1.0.1 Rec and IMSC 1.1 CR so we ought to decide which one 15:09:05 ack pal 15:09:22 .. should be master. Arguably we are working on 1.1 so it makes more sense to have that as master. 15:09:24 ack plh 15:09:39 Philippe: That's perfect timing, I'm currently writing a page on errata management at W3C 15:09:55 .. and I would like to use GitHub for that. Ideally what I'd like to see Pierre is that you keep 15:10:20 .. the master as 1.1 and a separate branch for 1.0.1 and use labels to indicate errata for 15:10:24 .. issues and pull requests. 15:10:27 Pierre: We already do that. 15:10:41 Philippe: I would like to be able to generate a page automatically based on GitHub labels 15:10:58 .. to indicate the errata for each publication, and not have to update a separate page every time. 15:11:18 Pierre: So the end result is there will be 3 branches: master (1.1), IMSC 1.0.1 and IMSC 1.0? 15:11:31 Philippe: We are about to supersede IMSC 1.0 - I sent the transition request but didn't get 15:11:43 .. it in front of the Director, so I'll do that today or tomorrow and it should happen in a 15:11:55 .. month or so. You can keep the branch but we should stop tracking errata for IMSC 1.0 15:11:59 .. at this point. 15:12:29 Pierre: That's good for me. Will errata reflect open pull requests or issues with a label? 15:12:35 Philippe: That's what I'm planning to write. 15:13:07 Nigel: Seems like a good idea to me, and I think it answers Pierre's question. 15:13:21 Philippe: I'm writing a separate document so I'd like your eyes on it Pierre. 15:13:32 Pierre: Excellent. In the short term I'll arrange the branches as we just discussed, and look 15:13:35 .. out for that document. 15:13:38 .. Thanks. 15:15:58 Nigel: Another approach on gh-pages would be to use CI to copy the different branch versions 15:16:14 .. to separate sub-folders and make the index page contain links. 15:16:29 Pierre: Sounds super-complicated, we should just update the github repo README page 15:16:46 Philippe: Would you like me to do that? 15:17:03 Pierre: Yes please do. 15:17:27 https://www.w3.org/TR/ttml-imsc/all 15:17:46 Pierre: The only other thing is I've started adding IMSC1.1 tests to the imsc-tests repo 15:18:05 Philippe: What is the milestone for IMSC? Is it linked to TTML2? 15:18:15 Pierre: IMSC 1.1 should be published as a Rec on Oct 4. 15:18:19 Philippe: A month after TTML2? 15:18:32 Pierre: Yes. My goal would be to synchronise with TTML2 so having a week or two between 15:18:46 .. the two is reasonable. In my mind IMSC 1.1 schedule is TTML2 + 2-3 weeks. 15:18:49 Philippe: OK 15:19:03 Pierre: What's good is IMSC 1.1 does not introduce any feature not already in TTML2 and 15:19:17 .. not also in IMSC 1.0.1, only constraints, so to the extent that IMSC 1.0.1 Rec is already 15:19:31 .. published and TTML2 will have a full set of tests, there's minimal risk on IMSC 1.1 from 15:19:43 .. a transition perspective. If TTML2 passes transition then from a testing perspective there's 15:19:46 .. no risk for IMSC 1.1. 15:20:18 Pierre: From an IPR standpoint for example the risk is all in TTML2. 15:20:59 Topic: IMSC vNext Requirements 15:21:11 Nigel: I would like to defer publication pending some editorial work. 15:21:29 Pierre: A good time would be after CR2 or with CR2 transition because there may be some 15:21:36 .. fine tuning needed especially with Ruby. 15:21:40 Nigel: Makes sense. 15:22:06 Topic: WebVTT 15:22:38 Philippe: I sent the transition request just now, so I'll get the approval tomorrow, targeting 15:22:44 .. publication on May 10 if everything goes well. 15:23:07 Pierre: What happened with the GitHub repo? 15:23:18 Philippe: The problem is it is used both by the CG and the WG which is pretty unique in 15:23:33 .. the consortium. I need to talk with Wendy on the best course of action here. 15:23:45 Pierre: One simple solution is to fork and have an upstream repo. 15:24:01 Philippe: I don't know, I wanted to get past the transition request before checking with Silvia. 15:24:05 Pierre: I understand. 15:24:41 Topic: AOB 15:24:53 Philippe: The IMSC vNext Reqs has the permissive licence - did you mean to do that? 15:25:03 Pierre: That's an omission, I'm not sure if I care. 15:25:08 Nigel: I'm not sure if I care either. 15:25:57 .. I don't think it's a bad thing to allow the world to be able to take those requirements 15:26:02 .. and reuse them as they see fit. 15:26:07 Pierre: Let's leave as is. 15:26:17 Philippe: If noone has a strong view, let's not change it. 15:26:37 s/AOB/IMSC vNext Reqs license 15:26:48 Topic: Meeting Close 15:27:05 Nigel: That's all the agenda for today, thanks everyone. [adjourns meeting] 15:27:19 rrsagent, make minutes 15:27:19 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2018/05/03-tt-minutes.html nigel 15:32:11 i/One issue was raised recently/Topic: Clarify default value of blur radius ttml1#351 15:36:22 s/Everything that's text related it seems/Everything else is text related it seems 15:36:57 i/RESOLUTION: Change bor/. 15:38:09 i/Philippe: What is the milestone for IMSC/Topic: IMSC publication milestones 15:38:48 rrsagent, make minutes 15:38:48 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2018/05/03-tt-minutes.html nigel 15:40:37 s/RRSAgent: pointer// 15:41:09 rrsagent, make minutes 15:41:09 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2018/05/03-tt-minutes.html nigel 15:41:59 s/meed/meet 15:43:34 s/consistenyl/consistently 15:44:02 rrsagent, make minutes 15:44:02 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2018/05/03-tt-minutes.html nigel 15:44:34 ScribeOptions: -final -noEmbedDiagnostics 15:44:36 rrsagent, make minutes 15:44:36 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2018/05/03-tt-minutes.html nigel 15:55:51 atai2 has left #tt 16:00:25 nigel has changed the topic to: TTWG meetings Thursdays 1000 Boston time. Most recent minutes: https://www.w3.org/2018/05/03-tt-minutes.html . Next meeting agenda to be published Tuesday or Wednesday. 17:24:38 Zakim has left #tt