13:59:59 RRSAgent has joined #tt 13:59:59 logging to https://www.w3.org/2018/05/10-tt-irc 14:00:01 RRSAgent, make logs public 14:00:01 Zakim has joined #tt 14:00:03 Meeting: Timed Text Working Group Teleconference 14:00:03 Date: 10 May 2018 14:00:21 Log: https://www.w3.org/2018/05/10-tt-irc 14:01:30 Present: Pierre, Nigel 14:01:35 Regrets: Thierry, Andreas 14:01:37 Chair: Nigel 14:01:39 scribe: nigel 14:02:03 Present+ Glenn, Philippe 14:02:50 Topic: This Meeting 14:03:44 Nigel: Today we have TTWG Charter, TTML test repos, not sure what else. 14:03:47 cyril has joined #tt 14:03:52 Philippe: A note on IMSC 14:03:57 Nigel: OK, IMSC added to the agenda 14:04:12 Present+ Cyril 14:04:49 Nigel: AOB or anything else to cover? 14:04:53 Philippe: An update on WebVTT 14:04:54 Nigel: OK 14:05:26 Topic: TTWG Charter 14:05:53 Nigel: I note that Philippe has opened a pull request on the Charter to address the issues 14:06:10 .. opened by me and Pierre, and that's gone round one review & edit iteration, looking good right now I think. 14:06:38 -> https://github.com/w3c/charter-timed-text/pull/29 Ac review #29 14:06:48 Philippe: If there are any other requests for changes let me know. 14:07:00 .. The end of the review is end of next week. I don't expect anything surprising. 14:07:19 .. So far 11 responders, 3 abstains. 14:07:39 Topic: TTML Test repos 14:07:56 Nigel: Glenn asked for ttml1-tests and ttml2-tests, seems like a good idea to me, but I can't make the repos. 14:08:18 .. Any objection to creating them? 14:08:21 Pierre: No objection 14:08:26 group: [no other objection] 14:08:32 Philippe: We need separate repos? 14:08:33 Glenn: Yes 14:08:36 Philippe: OK 14:08:46 Nigel: Please could you create those Philippe? 14:08:56 Philippe: Yes I can do so - will do while you continue... 14:09:42 Topic: TTML1 3rd Ed - to subtitle or not to subtitle? 14:09:49 Pierre: We seem to have the right people on this call to discuss this. 14:09:58 .. Nigel, you summarised this pretty well in one of your comments. 14:10:27 github: https://github.com/w3c/ttml1/issues/352 14:10:44 Glenn: My understanding is that we want a generic title that does not specify edition, and is flexible? 14:11:10 Pierre: Yes, I think NIgel summarised this - if anyone wants a generic undated version, 14:11:24 .. the pointer is /TR/ttml1 which always points to the latest version, but associated with this 14:11:37 .. ideally there should be an unversioned title that can be used to match the "latest" URL. 14:11:49 .. The way this came up is it is weird to have a reference that says "TTML1 2nd Ed" but when 14:11:54 .. you click on it you get 3rd Ed. 14:12:05 Glenn: Yes, I don't have any problem doing that as long as we don't change the title in one 14:12:17 .. of the specific editions. For example the specification could recommend a generic title 14:12:30 .. for use by referencing specs. It could do that in the spec somewhere, in the Intro or SOTD, 14:12:42 .. for example, it could have a note that says "for the purpose of generically referencing 14:12:56 .. TTML1 without specifying date or edition use XYZ". That's one way to handle it and would 14:13:06 .. meet my concern which is it does not change the title of the specific edition. 14:13:22 Pierre: My thinking was less intrusive, to use metadata so that tools like specref can extract 14:13:34 .. the name and know that "3rd Ed" is a version. 14:13:50 Philippe: You have 2 ways - you can put all the info into the h1 or divide into h1 and h2. 14:14:13 .. Respec can deal with it either way but specref only takes into account the h1 - it doesn't support subtitles. 14:14:24 Glenn: You mean the text content of the h1 or some metadata associated with it? 14:14:28 Philippe: The text content. 14:14:37 Glenn: That's the problem, I don't want to change the content of h1. 14:14:49 Philippe: Fine, it doesn't change the fact that we are still talking about TTML1. I'm not 14:15:00 .. trying to recommend one or the other. It's a matter of taste. Some people do not like to 14:15:19 .. use versions at all. They give the choice to make the version indication secondary, and 14:15:31 .. we tell them that they can omit it or put it in the h2. It doesn't matter to us. 14:15:41 .. You can still use the version URL. 14:16:02 .. The latest version is calculated automatically. 14:16:17 .. We only have one copy on the server, we don't modify it depending on how it is accessed. 14:16:24 .. That's with or without a date in the URL. 14:16:53 .. It's difficult to differentiate the case where the reader wanted a dated version or a general version, on the server side. 14:17:01 Glenn: And the latest version changes over time? 14:17:06 Philippe: Correct, those are calculated. 14:17:21 Glenn: From the server's perspective it just takes whatever comes out of the filesystem. 14:17:35 .. It doesn't sound like the metadata system would work unless you modify respec. 14:17:39 Pierre: Or specref. 14:17:45 Glenn: Yes, specref is what I mean. 14:18:14 Pierre: The first step is to modify those. 14:18:20 Glenn: How would you change the metadata in the document? 14:18:33 Pierre: That's a w3c tooling choice, it should be the same across all specs. 14:18:46 Philippe: I still don't understand - what is the purpose of the metadata, to give the edition? 14:19:11 Glenn: What I'm hearing is a name meta element in the head with a generic title, and specref 14:19:18 .. if it finds that uses it instead of the h1. 14:19:31 Philippe: Duplicating the information in metadata is never a good thing. 14:19:42 Glenn: In this case the content would be different because it would not include the version information. 14:19:56 Philippe: If we push the version into the h2 and teach specref about the h2 would be the 14:20:13 .. better option. It knows if you are linking to the generic latest or a specific edition. It can 14:20:28 .. return markup differently depending on how you use it. So it can merge the h1 and the h2 14:20:33 .. if applicable. That's better in the long run. 14:20:47 Glenn: Right now h2 have the top level headings? 14:21:07 Philippe: That's in the body, but in the head you have h1 with title and h2 with date etc. 14:21:17 .. In between some folk are adding another h2 in between with a subtitle. 14:21:25 Glenn: You can have an h1 inside head in HTML? 14:21:47 Philippe: I didn't mean the html I meant the div class/id="head" - the one that contains the 14:21:57 .. logo, the title, the copyright info, etc, those kind of stuff. 14:22:05 Glenn: The top level div, let me see... 14:22:23 ... there's a div class="head" I see. 14:22:34 plh has joined #tt 14:22:56 ... OK I see in TTML1 the title contains the 3rd Edition and the h2 which has the Editor's Draft ... 14:23:13 Philippe: The proposal is to move the "3rd Edition" in to the h2 and teach specref about that h2. 14:23:27 .. Visually you won't see anything different because the same text will be there but specref 14:23:35 .. can pick the h2 or not depending on what we teach it. 14:23:47 Glenn: Right now there's a "W3C Editor's Draft" in the h2. 14:23:53 Philippe: Yes and we're proposing to add another one. 14:23:54 https://www.w3.org/TR/pointerevents2/ 14:24:07 Philippe: For example the pointer events spec does exactly that. 14:24:39 .. It's called Pointer Events but if you go to the spec it says it's level 2. The intent is to 14:24:46 .. supersede level 1 in the future. 14:25:11 Glenn: I see. So it takes it out of the title, there's a new line there, basically. 14:25:14 Philippe: Correct 14:25:36 .. The effect that it has is that in specref if you put pointerevents2 you will see that it points 14:25:53 .. to the working draft but the title is just Pointer Events because specref doesn't get the h2 14:25:57 .. information from our systems. 14:26:25 -> https://www.specref.org/?q=pointerevents2 Specref for Pointer Events 2 14:27:25 Nigel: I see, the title is just from the h1 - because specref doesn't know about the h2 yet. 14:27:35 Philippe: Correct. 14:28:40 Glenn: There's a meta issue about what should the specific reference be from IMSC. 14:28:56 Nigel: That's a drift off this topic - it does need to be covered but that's different. 14:29:11 Glenn: If you put a date into specref then it points you to a specific dated version of the doc. 14:29:29 Pierre: That's the point, specref with a version specific URL will include the version, but 14:29:39 .. a generic latest link would just have the title without the version. 14:31:24 Philippe: If you're talking about latest version, you need to make sure the right title is returned. 14:31:28 .. That could be in our backend. 14:31:53 Glenn: It sounds like you need changes to specref and we need to change the title to put the edition into an h2? 14:32:07 Philippe: Right, if you want to do that, then we do need to make changes to specref too. 14:32:20 Glenn: Is your proposal to put the version info into the h2 Pierre? 14:32:33 Pierre: Yes that's what I would do if that's the direction we're going in. 14:32:43 Glenn: Even though that breaks our convention today? 14:33:17 Pierre: Yes - do you know of anyone who uses the title with version in the h1 today? 14:33:20 Glenn: Impossible to know. 14:33:31 Pierre: It seems like W3C is going in that direction generally so I would follow it. 14:34:00 .. We're just discussing modifying the TTML1 h1 to allow the automatic bibliographic references to work. 14:34:11 .. It would be to take "3rd Edition" out of the h1 and put it in the h2. 14:34:24 Glenn: My preference would be to modify Specref in such a way that we don't have to change 14:34:30 .. the title to a different format. 14:34:40 Philippe: No, that's not going to happen and I can't propagate that to other groups. 14:35:04 Pierre: We could introduce extra metadata duplicating the information but that's undesirable. 14:35:19 Philippe: We already have people using respec to create these h2s. 14:35:37 Glenn: I was suggesting that specref can look for metadata if it is there and if absent then 14:35:40 .. use the h2. 14:35:55 Philippe: That would be a special case and I'm not going to allow special cases, for sure, sorry. 14:36:09 .. It's not worth our development time unless I can propagate the change. 14:36:21 Glenn: The problem I see is it breaks continuity with the past titling convention, that's all. 14:36:38 .. It would also require a change in TTML2. It's just a formatting, stylistic change. We could 14:36:48 .. make that change. Give me a few days to convince myself it's okay. 14:37:18 Nigel: I think we should make an assumptive decision to change to version in h2 and then 14:37:26 .. you can tell us if you find any problem Glenn. 14:37:36 Pierre: I can just create a pull request for us to review, that's more concrete. 14:37:38 Nigel: Yes 14:37:42 Glenn: Then we can look at it. 14:37:57 Nigel: Pierre, I think you can go ahead and do that please. 14:38:51 SUMMARY: @palemieux to prepare a pull request moving the version into an h2 14:38:54 github-bot, end topic 14:39:01 https://github.com/w3c/ttml1-tests/ and https://github.com/w3c/ttml2-tests/ are live 14:39:27 Topic: IMSC reference to TTML1 14:39:34 Nigel: Do we have an issue about the reference? 14:39:45 Pierre: IMSC 1.0.1 references the latest TTML1 14:40:05 Nigel: It's not raised as an issue. 14:40:12 Glenn: We haven't discussed this - it is an open question. 14:40:25 Pierre: Presumably the difference between editions is to correct bugs and things that ought to be fixed. 14:40:37 .. So it doesn't seem unreasonable for a profile of TTML1 to reference the latest edition. 14:40:43 .. I could be persuaded otherwise. 14:41:03 Glenn: Up until 3rd Ed we insisted on only editorial changes, but in 3rd ed there are substantive changes. 14:41:18 Pierre: Yes, but regardless of whether the changes were substantive, they are bug fixes, 14:41:30 .. not feature additions. So if someone comes in and says "which version should I implement" 14:41:40 .. we would always say the latest edition. 14:41:43 s/version/edition 14:42:02 Philippe: Yes, that's what our system would say as well. 14:42:15 Glenn: It would be interesting to get other feedback on this, Mike may have a different view. 14:43:31 Nigel: Yes, it's a technical issue - if an implementor implements the spec precisely following 14:43:43 .. the latest edition and then that changes underneath, then the state of conformance of 14:43:55 .. that implementation is unclear. It could be that it's not a big enough problem to worry about. 14:44:04 Pierre: Yes I could be persuaded either way. 14:44:40 .. This is confusing from an external point of view too and causes arguments. Maybe I'm 14:44:48 .. persuading myself to point to a specific edition. 14:45:09 Glenn: In the case of TTML1 referencing XML we point to a specific version/edition of XML 14:45:12 .. so that doesn't arise. 14:45:47 Nigel: It seems to be a matter of good practice to reference a specific version but in doing that 14:46:00 .. to accept that if the referenced spec changes then the referring spec needs to be updated 14:46:06 .. and that should be transparent. 14:46:22 Glenn: In TTML we have references to XML 1.0 and XML 1.1 and both have editions in the title. 14:46:28 Philippe: Which link do you use? 14:46:46 Glenn: We use the dated links. 14:46:50 s/references/normative references 14:47:07 Glenn: The title has the edition and the link is dated. That's the practice we followed in TTML. 14:47:42 Pierre: Listening to this I'm starting to lean towards referencing a specific version in IMSC 1.1. 14:47:54 .. Maybe it wasn't a good idea in IMSC 1.0.1 to reference TTML1 without dates. 14:48:06 Philippe: The only problem is if you reference a dated version and you make a security 14:48:14 .. update that you want everyone to pick up then they won't. 14:48:34 Pierre: The tooling on W3C... Imagine IMSC 1.1 makes a hard reference to TTML1 2nd Ed. 14:48:47 .. Imagine in the meantime it was superseded because of a terrible security bug. When you 14:48:57 .. get to it you would get a huge warning saying "don't use this"? 14:49:00 Philippe: yes 14:49:05 Pierre: Doesn't that address the issue. 14:49:27 Philippe: If you don't mind this then realise that at the end you are directing the reader to 14:49:30 .. a specific version. 14:49:43 Pierre: At least it gives the reader the ability to do a diff and see what changed. 14:49:55 .. It also means, to Nigel's point, that as a group we have to be more active in updating stuff. 14:50:06 .. It is more work for us but it's more precise maybe. 14:50:20 Philippe: If you guys believe there is the use case to be that precise then sure. At the end of 14:50:36 .. the day it does not matter which reference you state, people are going to use whichever 14:50:46 .. XML parser they are familiar with. They're not going to write their own. 14:51:02 Glenn: On the other hand, from a point of view of conformance and testing you might have 14:51:15 .. an issue there, but that's a separate point. Right now we have referential integrity 14:51:29 .. with respect to TTML references. We went through TTML2 recently. 14:51:53 .. When we refer to RFC we don't have this issue, because they don't change the text. 14:52:02 Nigel: They change the text to point the reader to a newer version. 14:52:33 Glenn: That's true, but it doesn't change conformance wrt that spec. 14:53:03 Philippe: This is topical because the AB is discussing living standards. 14:53:32 Pierre: In some groups people want to be precise because they are putting stuff on shelves 14:53:47 .. for years and they want to know exactly which versions they reference. 14:54:06 Glenn: I'm reminded of DOS, and switches in code to handle different compatibility bits. 14:56:15 .. That's what you end up with when you were very precise. 14:57:01 Nigel: There's a precise mirror here with python, node, java etc with tests for a piece of software 14:57:16 .. passing given a specific set of 3rd party library versions, and capturing a freeze point 14:57:35 .. of those versions. We could do that with our specs, and associate a test suite with a specific 14:57:41 .. set of reference versions. 14:58:08 Glenn: Right now the tests are based on a specific version of a spec, you could make that 14:58:11 .. the other way around. 14:58:23 .. In the case of XML 1.1 it refers to the specific edit in place date. 14:59:36 Nigel: I'm not sure if we need an issue against IMSC 1.1 to reference a specific version of TTML2? 14:59:45 Glenn: I heard Pierre say he is leaning towards doing that. 15:00:49 github: https://github.com/w3c/imsc/issues/381 15:01:13 SUMMARY: Discussion ongoing, group leaning towards a specific dated reference to TTML 15:01:18 github-bot, end topic 15:02:10 Topic: TTML tests (revisited) 15:02:18 https://github.com/w3c/ttml1-tests/ and https://github.com/w3c/ttml2-tests/ are live 15:02:26 Philippe: I've created the repos and put them in the Timed Text team so you guys should 15:02:35 .. all have write access to them. I still have some generic files to add. 15:02:39 Nigel: Thank you! 15:02:57 -> https://github.com/w3c/ttml1-tests TTML1 Tests repo 15:03:09 -> https://github.com/w3c/ttml2-tests TTML2 Tests repo 15:03:34 Topic: IMSC 15:03:57 Philippe: FYI we started the superseding of IMSC 1.0 in favour of IMSC 1.0.1 as decided 15:04:11 .. by the WG in April. We started the proposal at the AC level. Assuming everything else 15:04:23 .. goes well then by mid-June we can declare IMSC 1.0 superseded, and all of the links 15:04:27 .. will be updated as appropriate. 15:04:29 Nigel: Thank you! 15:04:47 Topic: WebVTT 15:05:01 Philippe: We are publishing the CR for WebVTT today so that was the last publication in my 15:05:16 .. pipeline for this WG. 15:05:20 Nigel: Thank you 15:06:24 Topic: Meeting close 15:06:37 Glenn: I just closed TTML2 issues 699 and 715 by merging the approved pull requests that 15:06:40 .. had been open for a while. 15:06:42 Nigel: Thank you. 15:07:39 Nigel: We seem to have covered our agenda for today, so I'll adjourn. Just a note that in 15:07:49 .. 2 weeks' time there's no meeting due to the IRT industry event. 15:07:57 .. Thanks everyone! [adjourns meeting] 15:08:01 rrsagent, make minutes 15:08:01 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2018/05/10-tt-minutes.html nigel 15:12:38 s/TTML tests (revisited)/TTML Test repos (revisited) 15:16:18 s/Doesn't that address the issue./Doesn't that address the issue? 15:17:27 rrsagent, make minutes 15:17:27 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2018/05/10-tt-minutes.html nigel 15:18:04 ScribeOptions: -final -noEmbedDiagnostics 15:18:05 rrsagent, make minutes 15:18:05 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2018/05/10-tt-minutes.html nigel 15:19:29 nigel has changed the topic to: TTWG meetings Thursdays 1000 Boston time. Minutes for most recent call: https://www.w3.org/2018/05/10-tt-minutes.html 16:04:26 Zakim has left #tt