14:00:25 RRSAgent has joined #tt 14:00:25 logging to https://www.w3.org/2018/06/14-tt-irc 14:00:27 RRSAgent, make logs public 14:00:27 Zakim has joined #tt 14:00:29 Meeting: Timed Text Working Group Teleconference 14:00:29 Date: 14 June 2018 14:00:31 tmichel has joined #tt 14:00:39 Log: https://www.w3.org/2018/06/14-tt-irc 14:01:15 cyril has joined #tt 14:02:26 Present: Philippe, Cyril, Nigel, Glenn, Thierry 14:02:30 Regrets: Andreas 14:02:52 Chair: Nigel 14:03:03 scribe: nigel 14:03:35 Topic: This meeting 14:04:06 Nigel: I think we need to talk about TTML2 CR2 publication, dates etc. as well as one or two 14:04:14 .. agenda-marked items on the repo. 14:05:35 .. We also have some IMSC 1.1 agenda topics 14:05:40 Pierre: Start with requirements issues. 14:05:43 Nigel: Yes. 14:06:22 .. AOB or particular other points to raise? I have TPAC to mention 14:06:29 group: [no other business] 14:06:32 Topic: TPAC 2018 14:06:51 Nigel: You'll have in your inboxes a message about registration which has just been opened today. 14:07:10 .. My request to resolve the clash between Media and Entertainment IG and TTWG seems to 14:07:35 .. have had no action taken and I've received no response, and the clash remains on the 14:07:40 .. published schedule for the Monday. 14:08:21 Pierre: FYI My attendance later in the week has become impossible now so I have a strong 14:08:26 .. preference for being done by Wednesday. 14:09:05 Nigel: I also talked to one of the Chairs of the M&E IG who told me that their meeting on 14:09:13 .. the Monday is the traditional day but there's no other reason for it. 14:09:26 Pierre: We should focus on specific topics to cover in a joint meeting since moving the 14:09:31 .. meetings might not happen now. 14:09:33 Nigel: +1 14:09:59 Topic: TTML2 CR2 publication 14:10:15 Nigel: I sent the CfC out yesterday - a little later than agreed last week, but our discussion 14:10:28 .. last week did not cover the additional pull requests that came along after the meeting, 14:10:34 .. which took a bit of extra processing. 14:10:52 q+ 14:11:14 .. The next question is, given the CfC end date, when can we make the transition request 14:11:17 .. and publish CR2. 14:11:20 ack plh 14:11:34 Philippe: If you want to publish on the 28th the trick is to send the transition request on 14:12:03 .. the 21st, with a note that the decision will be finalised on [date]. I used that trick before. 14:12:24 Glenn: Why do we need a transition request if we're already in CR? 14:12:35 Philippe: Because you're making substantive changes and the Director has to approve it. 14:12:45 .. Only CR updates with substantive changes need a transition request. 14:13:11 .. Based on that I'd like to target the 28th June for publishing. Is that a feasible date? 14:13:21 Philippe: If you send a transition request on 21st then yes it is. 14:13:43 Glenn: Then that puts PR on August 9. 14:13:56 .. And the final Rec is sometime in September. 14:14:01 Philippe: Yes, the 13th to be exact. 14:14:28 Nigel: Who can take the action to draft the Transition Request? 14:14:35 Thierry: I can do that. 14:14:39 Nigel: Thank you 14:15:01 .. If we can have a draft for me to look at say on Monday that would be great. 14:15:05 Thierry: Okay 14:15:22 Nigel: Thanks for your flexibility there Philippe. 14:15:58 https://www.w3.org/2018/06/ttml2-cr-diff.html 14:16:04 Glenn: I just sent out a link to a diff listing - thank you Philippe for sorting that manually (the diff service is not working) 14:16:20 .. It is actually between the branch where I'm tweaking the CfC that has a pending pull request, 14:16:33 .. with some minor editorial stuff there like the date on the document and a couple of other 14:16:39 .. little things. It's useful for doing a comparison. 14:17:15 Nigel: Thank you. I also want to make sure we have agreement on the earliest CR exit date. 14:17:51 Glenn: I made it August 9 for entering PR. 14:18:12 .. I'm not sure what the July date is - on your tool it listed August 9 as PR entry. 14:18:21 Philippe: It also says deadline for comment July 26th. 14:18:29 https://w3c.github.io/spec-releases/milestones/?cr=2018-06-28&noFPWD=true 14:18:34 Nigel: We need to put that deadline for comments in the SOTD. 14:18:45 Philippe: The deadline needs to be before you request transition otherwise it doesn't make 14:18:46 glenn has joined #tt 14:18:53 .. sense, and you need to request transition a week before you publish. 14:18:57 https://w3c.github.io/spec-releases/milestones/?cr=2018-06-28&noFPWD=true 14:19:24 Glenn: We didn't write deadline for comments in the SOTD 14:19:26 Nigel: We need to. 14:19:37 Philippe: Yes you need to make it clear otherwise if you receive a comment a day after 14:19:41 .. then you're in trouble. 14:19:59 Glenn: Okay I'll add that deadline if that's ok 14:20:16 PROPOSAL: Set TTML2 CR2 deadline for comments at July 26th 2018 14:20:27 Nigel: Any objections? 14:20:32 RESOLUTION: Set TTML2 CR2 deadline for comments at July 26th 2018 14:21:04 Nigel: I also asked if anyone has any features to add to the at risk list, and since I've had 14:21:13 .. no responses, I assume there will not be any more at risk features. 14:21:42 .. Note that we have already added lineShear and shear 14:22:00 Glenn: I don't anticipate any problem with those because we've already implemented them 14:22:12 .. in TTPE in private, for presentation and validation and I think that maybe Pierre has done 14:22:24 .. something in that regard, maybe for IMSC. I anticipate something from Netflix as well. 14:22:31 .. I don't think either will be thrown out. 14:22:34 Nigel: Ok, sounds good. 14:23:14 .. I think it's worth mentioning that the main change in your as-yet-unmerged pull request 14:23:24 .. is to add details of the changes since CR1. 14:23:48 Glenn: Yes, I made some progress with that last night so that should be completed by 14:23:51 .. next week's meeting. 14:24:26 Nigel: Anything else for transition to CR2 that I may not have thought of? 14:24:41 Philippe: No, I don't think so for a CR2 transition. It should be a pretty simple transition. 14:24:50 .. You don't have to demonstrate that you addressed all of the issues at this point. 14:25:07 Nigel: Thank you that's helpful. 14:25:16 Glenn: We have deferred some editorial changes to PR. 14:25:25 Philippe: Yes, you can do that. 14:25:42 Glenn: As I've mentioned to Nigel I will be strongly opposed to any substantive change. 14:25:53 .. Anything that looks like it is substantive has to be put into a Note and made informative 14:26:07 .. unless it is completely broken. I don't know of anything that is hopelessly broken that 14:26:19 .. we have to get into the text as normative text at this point. Of course I can't anticipate 14:26:23 .. what comments will come out of CR2. 14:27:08 Nigel: That's a good segue into the agenda item. 14:27:23 Glenn: There's just one. 14:27:53 Topic: Applicability of tts:rubyPosition when tts:ruby="text". ttml2#832 14:27:57 github: https://github.com/w3c/ttml2/issues/832 14:28:15 Nigel: This is a request for a substantive change concerning rubyPosition. 14:28:27 Glenn: It is minimally substantive but I think we can call it that. It's a change in normative 14:28:36 .. text that could impact conformance so it satisfies the criteria. 14:28:57 Nigel: Pierre raised the issue, Glenn opened a pull request, #833 14:29:43 Pierre: It looks right to me. It makes it invalid to specify position on a ruby text that is 14:29:48 .. within an explicit textContainer? 14:29:56 Glenn: Exactly, which covers the previous case that was documented. 14:30:00 Pierre: I will approve. 14:30:12 Cyril: I haven't looked at it yet. 14:30:14 .. I will do that. 14:30:43 Nigel: Glenn please hold off merging until Cyril has had a look a it? 14:30:46 Glenn: Sure I'll do that. 14:31:07 Nigel: I will treat this as review feedback during the CfC period so I don't intend to extend 14:31:15 .. the CfC deadline based on this. 14:32:01 SUMMARY: PR Open, to merge early as a CfC feedback comment when @cconcolato's review is complete 14:32:04 github-bot, end topic 14:32:36 Cyril: I've just approved it. 14:32:43 Glenn: Great, I'll go ahead and merge it. 14:33:15 Topic: TTML2 open issues for wide review 14:33:20 https://github.com/w3c/ttml2/milestone/3 14:33:32 Nigel: I believe all those are with me for action. 14:33:38 Glenn: What's holding those up? 14:33:49 Nigel: Me being snowed under with other things, is the answer. 14:34:38 .. I need to send a disposition to SMPTE and another to Glenn Goldtein. 14:34:51 .. For issue #277 that's one for us to discuss. 14:35:03 Topic: Incorporate CSS advances into TTML vertical text handling ttml2#277 14:35:08 github: https://github.com/w3c/ttml2/issues/277 14:36:11 Nigel: The status of this is that we could mark sideways as at risk but do not have a 14:36:15 .. feature designator for it. 14:36:38 .. Any views? 14:36:52 Cyril: I vaguely remember we decided not to mark as at risk because it was implemented. 14:37:02 Nigel: OK I didn't recall that. 14:37:09 Cyril: Maybe Glenn mentioned it was implemented. 14:37:17 Glenn: Yes, we have all the current values implemented. 14:37:49 Cyril: Is there a risk to marking it as risk? 14:37:50 Glenn: No 14:37:55 Nigel: Two downsides: 14:38:01 .. 1. Suggests non-implementation 14:38:10 .. 2. Editorial work to add the feature designator 14:38:35 Cyril: I don't think the argument for not inviting implementation is a practical problem 14:38:40 .. given the current implementation status. 14:38:52 Glenn: I think it's unnecessary work and we should not mark sideways as at risk. 14:39:01 .. It's implemented. 14:39:13 Nigel: You have one implementation for it? 14:39:26 Glenn: I have a presentation implementation and another member has a validation implementation 14:39:30 .. so it satisfies the criteria. 14:39:37 Nigel: Ok then we don't need to mark it as at risk. 14:39:50 Glenn: As a general comment I'm worried about proliferation of feature designators. We 14:40:06 .. went from around 114 to about 250, so we've doubled the designators but we haven't 14:40:12 .. doubled the number of features. Compared to TTML1. 14:40:40 Nigel: Can we resolve to close this with no further change? 14:40:43 Glenn: No objection 14:40:46 Nigel: Anyone else? 14:40:57 RESOLUTION: Close without marking sideways as at risk 14:41:01 github-bot, end topic 14:43:10 Topic: TTML2 CR2 wrap-up 14:43:29 Nigel: I think that's all for TTML2, barring the open editorial branch to complete the changes 14:43:30 .. etc. 14:43:40 Glenn: I'll leave that open for a while to deal with other editorial points. 14:43:46 .. [need to drop off now] 14:44:06 Nigel: Thank you 14:44:12 Topic: IMSC v1.1 Requirements 14:44:37 Nigel: Pierre, I see we have a few issues open. 14:45:16 Topic: Consider adding support for "before" and "after" annotation position imsc-vnext-reqs#23 14:45:23 github: https://github.com/w3c/imsc-vnext-reqs/issues/23 14:46:29 Pierre: Note that #25 may need to change depending on what we decide for #23 here. 14:47:03 .. Today IMSC 1.1 has requirement only for rubyPosition="outside". 14:47:15 .. After some digging, I think that's optimised for 2 line presentations. 14:47:28 .. My understanding is sometimes there are 3 lines, depending on the authorial style. 14:47:39 .. If they are anything other than 2 lines the author will need more control than outside, 14:47:52 .. and will need to position rubys before or after, so my suggestion is simply to support 14:47:58 .. before and after as well as outside for rubyPosition. 14:48:09 .. From an implementation perspective there's more syntax but in terms of layout it's 14:48:23 .. kind of a no-op because before and after need to be supported for outside anyway. 14:48:30 .. This reflects feedback I have received. 14:48:42 Cyril: I have no objection. We were proponents for outside but we don't have a problem 14:48:54 .. with people using before and after if they want to. It's not exactly a no-op for implementation 14:48:59 .. but the cost is minimal. 14:49:11 Pierre: The risk is too great to not include. 14:49:34 Nigel: I think that's right, and also would note that whatever syntax we accept for 14:49:41 .. rubyPosition we also permit in rubyReserve. 14:49:45 Pierre: Yes. 14:50:20 RESOLUTION: Support `"before"` and `"after"` values for `tts:rubyPosition`. 14:50:25 github-bot, end topic 14:50:46 Topic: Update tts:rubyReserve values imsc-vnext-reqs#25 14:50:52 github: https://github.com/w3c/imsc-vnext-reqs/issues/25 14:51:19 Nigel: Now we resolved in #23 to support `before` and `after` we need to do that here. 14:51:26 Pierre: Yes, that removes the restrictions. 14:51:52 PROPOSAL: Support `#rubyReserve` without additional constraints 14:52:03 Nigel: Any objections? 14:52:11 RESOLUTION: Support `#rubyReserve` without additional constraints 14:52:18 github-bot, end topic 14:53:02 Topic: Consider adding support for tts:rubyAlign="spaceAround" imsc-vnext-reqs#30 14:53:09 github: https://github.com/w3c/imsc-vnext-reqs/issues/30 14:53:18 Pierre: I just opened this after working on it for a couple of days. 14:53:24 .. The illustration is the best thing to look at. 14:53:38 .. Today the only thing that's allowed is center, which is the bottom illustration. 14:53:58 .. The feedback I received is that it doesn't work when the ruby base is very long, because 14:54:09 .. bunching up the ruby text makes it less easy to read. 14:54:20 .. The space around example (top example) is preferred. 14:54:42 Cyril: No objection, but the examples .. are they from a real example? 14:54:49 Pierre: I'm told this happens in real subtitles. 14:54:56 Cyril: Ok, I have no objection. 14:55:18 Pierre: I'd like more information before finalising my own opinion. Cyril, I'll try to get as 14:55:25 .. many real examples as possible. 14:55:36 Cyril: I'll check with Netflix if we have any opinions and examples too. 14:55:49 Pierre: Thank you. Also there's a subtle difference between spaceAround and spaceBetween. 14:56:02 .. Right now my research says adding spaceAround would address most of the concerns. 14:56:23 .. What I hear this morning is there are no immediate concerns to allowing it. 14:56:32 Cyril: To be on the safe side we should maybe implement all values. 14:56:45 .. Once you've implemented spaceAround and spaceBetween then adding withBase is not 14:56:48 .. that difficult. 14:57:01 Pierre: Yes, I don't know what CSS supports other than spaceAround, which is the initial value, 14:57:05 .. so seems pretty safe. 14:57:21 Cyril: Do you prefer restricting IMSC 1.1 to a limited set of values and then increasing them 14:57:26 .. later if there is CSS support. 14:57:40 Pierre: I'd rather go down that path, it avoids misuse. It's not an easy question. 14:57:57 .. Do please ask the question Cyril about supporting all of them. If CSS supports all of them 14:58:04 .. then that makes it a lot easier in my mind. 14:58:31 SUMMARY: Research continuing, consider adding all values if CSS supports them. 14:58:55 Topic: tts:fontShear should be tts:shear imsc-vnext-reqs#24 14:59:00 github: https://github.com/w3c/imsc-vnext-reqs/issues/24 14:59:21 Cyril: I think it should be lineShear. I know it is not supported in CSS, because it requires 14:59:34 .. breaking lines into separate paragraphs, but lineShear is what people expect in terms of 14:59:40 .. rendering, in all the examples. 14:59:52 Pierre: The author can do that by creating two `p`s. 15:00:02 Cyril: The implementation can do it by breaking into `p`s. 15:00:19 Pierre: It's not simple, and it means if you ever want block shear then you can't - you can't 15:00:28 .. have the flexibility to shear each `p`. 15:00:41 .. I did ask about line breaks in Japanese subtitles and my understanding is it is not acceptable 15:00:50 .. to let line wrap wrap lines. 15:00:57 Cyril: That's not the case, we use that all the time. 15:01:11 Pierre: The feedback I received is that authors want to control line breaks and you cannot 15:01:18 .. just break anywhere in Japanese. 15:01:31 Cyril: My concern is that using multiple `p`s can mess up the timing. It makes the document 15:01:38 .. much simpler if you have one `p` per region or per event. 15:01:57 Nigel: How are we going to figure this out? 15:02:07 Cyril: I think we need to gather more feedback. 15:02:16 .. Would it be an option so support both shear and lineShear? 15:02:30 Pierre: Supporting lineShear is going to be extremely difficult. 15:02:35 Nigel: Because we're missing something in CSS? 15:02:44 Pierre: Yes it only allows shearing of blocks. 15:02:53 Nigel: Yes, I found that in my research too. 15:03:14 Pierre: The overall challenge is turning a bunch of lines into a bunch of `p`s requires 15:03:33 .. restructuring the entire span tree. With rubys on top of that it's going to be hard to 15:03:48 .. implement and also I suspect brittle. I don't want us to understaimate the complexity 15:03:52 .. of doing this correctly. 15:03:59 s/staim/estim 15:04:11 Nigel: I have a suggestion that we raise this requirement with the CSS WG. 15:04:44 .. I think the requirement is to be able to apply shear to line areas. 15:04:57 Pierre: Yes, like many of our requests, CSS does not deal with lines, but we need to. 15:05:19 Nigel: Do we ever need to shear spans within a line? 15:05:27 Pierre: I'm not aware of that requirement 15:05:33 Cyril: Me neither - normally it is the entire line. 15:05:47 Pierre: I'm fairly certain that tts:fontShear is not needed for subtitles and captions. 15:06:01 .. Ideally both lineShear and shear would be supported, but lineShear is challenging to implement. 15:06:10 .. Is IMSC 1.1 broken if lineShear is not supported? 15:07:02 Nigel: My proposal is to support shear for now, raise an issue with CSS WG for lineshear 15:07:12 .. with the intent of adding support for it to a future version of IMSC 1.1. 15:07:17 Pierre: I like that approach for now. 15:07:36 .. Also Glenn filed another issue recently with CSS recently too, which we should track. 15:07:55 Nigel: I have a list in the agenda actually. 15:08:11 Cyril: One concern about shear is what if the user changes the font size and suddenly you 15:08:22 .. have line wrapping, then the alignment is not desired. 15:08:33 Pierre: If you shear as the entire `p` is the result completely objectionable? 15:08:48 .. For 2 lines there's a very subtle difference, but with 4 lines you see a pretty big difference. 15:09:07 .. Not being Japanese, I don't know if the result is unacceptable or just a bit strange or 15:09:20 .. annoying. 15:09:27 Cyril: I'll come back to you on this one. 15:09:33 Pierre: Thank you, I will continue to dig on this too. 15:10:13 ACTION: Pierre to raise an issue with CSS WG requesting support for lineShear 15:10:16 Created ACTION-512 - Raise an issue with css wg requesting support for lineshear [on Pierre-Anthony Lemieux - due 2018-06-21]. 15:10:54 Pierre: I think it is clear that we will replace fontShear with shear, and deal with lineShear 15:10:58 .. separately? 15:11:07 Cyril: I'd rather make one pull request for the shear part. 15:11:17 Pierre: We know fontShear is bad so we need to address that now. 15:11:29 Cyril: Just add an editor's note to the pull request that we're considering adding lineShear 15:11:36 Pierre: Sounds like a good solution. 15:12:13 SUMMARY: @palemieux to raise an issue with CSS WG, and to add an ed note to the pull request to note ongoing query re lineShear. 15:12:59 PROPOSAL: Drop fontShear support and add shear support, with continuing consideration for lineShear 15:13:11 Cyril: We would prefer support for lineShear but not shear. We don't think we are going to 15:13:14 .. use shear at all. 15:13:35 Nigel: OK I won't record a resolution for that. 15:13:49 SUMMARY: Continue to investigate options for using shear and lineShear 15:14:20 Cyril: I would suggest adding both shear and lineShear and add a note to lineShear to say 15:14:40 .. we are investigating implementation difficulties given CSS, and add a note to shear 15:14:55 .. saying we are investigating line alignment issues. Then we can add both and remove one 15:15:03 .. or the other [or neither] later. 15:15:10 Pierre: That's fine with me 15:15:36 SUMMARY: Temporarily add shear and lineShear with editorial notes against both, pending a later resolution. 15:16:09 Topic: Exclude support for blur radius in tts:textShadow imsc-vnext-reqs#27 15:16:16 github: https://github.com/w3c/imsc-vnext-reqs/issues/27 15:17:49 Nigel: Looking at this, it seems like there's good CSS support already for blur and some of 15:18:02 .. the examples of using a large diffuse shadow really need blur to look good. 15:18:15 Pierre: The motivation here is that 708 does not support blur. 15:19:02 Nigel: Are you asserting that the requirement for subtitles is only derived from 708? 15:19:18 Pierre: Yes. For traditional subtitles text outline is used not text shadow. 15:20:06 Nigel: It would help if I could dig out an example here but I am pretty sure I have seen 15:20:15 .. examples that do use shadow. Requesting more time! 15:20:23 Pierre: Absolutely, that would help us make the right decision. 15:20:47 Nigel: In the meantime I assume that the implementation cost is very low because you 15:20:54 .. can just pass the blur value to CSS. 15:21:05 Pierre: I'm not worried about CSS implementation here but I am worried about other 15:21:55 .. implementation techniques, given why we support textShadow, i.e. 708. 15:22:10 Nigel: We're not overall constrained by 708 for implementability. 15:22:23 Pierre: Right. If you could find examples that would be really good evidence. 15:22:27 Nigel: Okay I'll have a look. 15:22:45 SUMMARY: Continue to look for supporting use cases 15:23:11 github-bot, end topic 15:26:03 Topic: Miscellaneous editorial fixes imsc#388 15:26:09 github: https://github.com/w3c/imsc/pull/388 15:26:52 Nigel: Given that Stefan and I have given feedback, what do we need to discuss in the meeting? 15:27:05 Pierre: I'd like to walk through your feedback Nigel so we can close this and move on. 15:27:17 .. It's important to merge this pull request to allow other work to proceed. 15:28:34 Pierre: You've requested that features link back to constraints. 15:28:46 Nigel: Yes, based on whether there are conformance keywords, rather than just limiting 15:28:51 .. to SHALLs and SHALL NOTs. 15:28:56 Pierre: Okay, I can deal with that. 15:29:21 .. There a bunch of things that you and Stefan noted that are related to changes in TTML2 15:29:34 .. but this pull request is not intended to address those. I want to deal with the TTML2 15:30:13 .. feature refactoring separately, and not address https://github.com/w3c/imsc/pull/388#discussion_r195347251 15:30:15 .. here. 15:30:22 Nigel: Okay, have we got an issue open for it? 15:30:31 Pierre: We can open an omnibus issue - it's next on my list. 15:30:43 Nigel: Sure, I don't mind taking that approach to allow this to continue. 15:33:16 Pierre: [colour contrast question] 15:33:42 Nigel: If the answer is "no" you haven't checked then fine, put that on and raise an issue 15:33:48 .. to deal with it, then we can proceed. 15:33:52 Pierre: Okay, I can do that. 15:34:47 Nigel: [TTML2 prohibition comment] I think you mean introduced rather than specified? 15:35:07 Pierre: No, really everything in TTML2. I think we should omit prohibited things. It's been 15:35:28 .. a source of errors when we tried to track features in TTML2 so it makes it easier to 15:35:39 .. maintain if we just include features with some support, and easier to read. 15:37:11 Nigel: I think we need to include all dependent features that are potential parts or related 15:37:30 .. to bigger "group" features even if they are in fact prohibited, just for clarity. The 15:37:47 .. `#extent-auto-version-2` comment above is a good example. 15:37:51 Pierre: That makes sense, that will be done. 15:38:09 Nigel: We can move that into the TTML2 feature change mop-up issue? 15:38:14 Pierre: Yes, absolutely. 15:38:51 i/Nigel: I think/Nigel: [TTML2 features comment] 15:39:03 Pierre: I wanted to make sure that we didn't think that excluding prohibited features is a 15:39:14 .. bad idea. That is the major substantial change in this pull request. 15:39:57 Nigel: Just testing the idea. Is it clear and unambiguous? Yes. 15:40:04 .. Is it helpful for implementers? Not sure. 15:40:13 Pierre: That's not clear to me either. 15:40:22 .. For authors it's much easier. 15:41:40 Cyril: It's easier from an editor's point of view. 15:41:44 .. I think I'm fine with that. 15:42:29 Nigel: One more point - the deprecation warning on ittp:progressivelyDecodable. 15:42:32 Pierre: I'll add that. 15:42:56 .. If I make those changes we discussed will you be able to approve them early tomorrow your time Nigel? 15:43:01 Nigel: Yes, I don't see why not. 15:43:27 SUMMARY: Pierre to make changes as discussed. 15:43:30 github-bot, end topic 15:43:35 TOPIC: IMSC 1.1 schedule 15:44:23 Pierre: The moratorium is not at a perfect time, so it'll be hard to do a CR2 by June 28. 15:45:16 Nigel: We should stagger after TTML2 so that we aren't hit in IMSC 1.1 by late substantive 15:45:22 .. changes to TTML2. 15:45:42 Pierre: Given the moratorium we should plan for CR2 to be ready on July 17 when publications 15:45:45 .. resume. 15:45:51 Nigel: To request the transition then? 15:46:12 Pierre: No we should have on the Directors desk on July 17 the transition request. 15:46:36 Nigel: Then publication will be July 24 15:46:45 Pierre: Another moratorium begins July 25 15:46:51 Nigel: So we want publication in that window. 15:47:12 Pierre: Yes 15:47:25 Nigel: Thierry, what would you recommend to expedite this? 15:47:43 Thierry: I think we should get it to the Director ahead of the "geek week" moratorium, 15:47:49 .. during which there is poor availability for the team. 15:48:30 .. We need both the transition request accepted and then the publication in that window. 15:50:17 Nigel: Can we do a CfC on June 21 and make the transition request on July 5 to ensure 15:50:25 .. we are good to publish in that window? Is that feasible? 15:51:07 Pierre: If the CfC starts on June 28 then it ends July 12 and the transition request could 15:52:05 .. be made on July 16. 15:52:17 Nigel: [concern about staff availability to draft transition request] 15:52:37 Thierry: I can help draft it ahead of geek week, and we can use the trick that Philippe 15:52:40 .. mentioned for TTML2 earlier. 15:53:06 .. Why don't I draft it for the 5th, then Nigel you and I can talk through any issues on the 6th, 15:53:43 .. then it can be submitted and be ready for the Director on the 16th, and be published 15:53:58 .. by the 26th (the last permitted date before the summer moratorium). 15:54:04 Nigel: Okay, sounds like it would work. 15:54:24 Pierre: Ok 15:54:37 Thierry: So we should have a response on the 23rd and I can request publication on the 26th. 15:54:42 Pierre: Sounds like a good plan. 15:54:55 Thierry: Can you provide an ED close to the CR by the 5th? 15:55:10 Pierre: Yes, based on this plan the goal is to get CR2 ready by June 28 15:55:12 Nigel: +1 15:55:26 Pierre: Editorially that can work, I think we have those issues regarding rubyAlign and 15:55:41 .. shear and I think that we will try to make progress quickly. In the worst case we can 15:55:51 .. add features and mark them as at risk. So it is possible. 15:56:11 Nigel: Putting shear and lineShear at risk would be an excellent way to give us time to 15:56:16 .. deal with those issues. 15:56:27 Pierre: Yes, and for rubyAlign too, we could put some values at risk. 15:56:39 .. Okay, that gives me good confidence. 15:57:13 Topic: Meeting Close 15:57:21 Nigel: We've completed our agenda, thank you. 15:57:27 Pierre: Thanks for the great input on the issues. 16:07:47 Nigel: Great, let's adjourn! See you next week. [adjourns meeting] 16:07:50 rrsagent, make minutes 16:07:50 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2018/06/14-tt-minutes.html nigel 16:11:57 s|https://w3c.github.io/spec-releases/milestones/?cr=2018-06-28&noFPWD=true|| 16:12:34 i/Topic: TTML2 CR2 publication/.. let's take that offline for now. 16:17:00 rrsagent, make minutes 16:17:00 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2018/06/14-tt-minutes.html nigel 16:21:10 scribeOptions: -final -noEmbedDiagnostics 16:21:11 rrsagent, make minutes 16:21:11 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2018/06/14-tt-minutes.html nigel 16:34:32 Zakim has left #tt 16:39:15 nigel has changed the topic to: TTWG meetings Thursdays 1000 Boston time. Minutes for most recent meeting: https://www.w3.org/2018/06/14-tt-minutes.html Agenda for the next call will be posted on Tuesday or Wednesday.