14:00:29 RRSAgent has joined #tt 14:00:29 logging to https://www.w3.org/2018/06/21-tt-irc 14:00:31 RRSAgent, make logs public 14:00:31 Zakim has joined #tt 14:00:33 Meeting: Timed Text Working Group Teleconference 14:00:33 Date: 21 June 2018 14:01:13 Log: https://www.w3.org/2018/06/21-tt-irc 14:01:47 Present: Nigel 14:01:49 Chair: Nigel 14:01:52 Regrets: Andreas 14:01:57 scribe: nigel 14:02:03 Present+ Thierry 14:02:08 cyril has joined #tt 14:02:28 Present+ Pierre 14:03:09 Present+ Cyril, Glenn 14:03:20 Topic: This meeting 14:03:34 Glenn: [can only stay 45 minutes] 14:03:41 Nigel: Thanks for letting us know. 14:03:52 .. Any other time constraints from anyone? 14:03:56 group: [silence] 14:04:17 Nigel: Today we have TTML2 issues if there are any for CR2, and any comments to be 14:04:23 .. raised on the CfC. 14:04:51 .. I should also raise the way that we are responding to comments raised during the CfC period. 14:05:09 .. I don't think we have anything on TTML1. Anything on IMSC? 14:05:49 Pierre: There's one issue we ought to discuss, #372 re rw and rh, because you were surprised Nigel. 14:05:53 Nigel: Yes, let's add that. 14:06:06 Pierre: Also, based on feedback I've received I'm about to open another issue against the 14:06:36 .. requirements for rubyAlign which we could usefully discuss. It's already there actually. 14:06:54 .. Actually we already discussed rubyAlign so we don't need to cover that. 14:07:27 Nigel: We have one action on CSS. 14:07:34 Glenn: I have a couple of issues to discuss on TTML2. 14:08:00 .. There are 5 pull requests approved pending merge. 14:08:06 Nigel: Let's come to that, just doing the agenda now. 14:08:15 Glenn: I have a couple of items on TTML2 to get to. 14:08:37 Nigel: I don't expect anything on WebVTT. I haven't got a TPAC agenda item, but just to 14:08:44 .. remind everyone registration is open. 14:09:00 .. I've started to work on a list of topics to cover in a potential joint meeting with the M&E IG 14:09:04 .. which I will share. 14:09:22 .. Anything else for the agenda today? 14:09:29 group: [silence] 14:09:34 Nigel: Ok let's go. 14:09:43 Topic: TTML2 CR2 14:10:00 Nigel: Status report: CfC is more than half way through and there are some pull requests 14:10:14 .. that address comments received during the CfC period. I want to treat those as CfC 14:10:29 .. review comments and merge the fixes for those soon, but alert everyone to the fact 14:10:40 .. that is happening and encourage you to be aware when reviewing. 14:11:19 .. We have 5 approved pull requests pending merge, and I would propose that we merge 14:11:23 .. them as soon as possible. 14:11:29 .. Any objections to doing that? 14:12:48 Pierre: Not an objection, just confirmation that 14:13:35 .. changes to the feature list are going to be treated editorially, so we can make those 14:13:39 .. changes prior to PR? 14:13:49 Glenn: I would support that. 14:13:53 Pierre: I thought we had discussed it. 14:14:08 Glenn: I think you could argue it both ways. The feature system is on the one hand a meta-feature 14:14:21 .. in the sense that it is about features and it is not defining new features but labelling them. 14:14:35 .. On the other hand the standard profiles are normative so every time we add or change 14:14:47 .. one of the profiles files it is changing some normative text in the document. I would 14:14:51 .. prefer to take your point of view. 14:14:58 Pierre: I agree with your assessment. 14:15:14 Glenn: If we do it that way then we should say that in the SoTD to give ourselves permission 14:15:25 .. to do that, which could result in objections from external readers that we would have 14:15:41 .. to deal with. We should raise that in the transition request. 14:15:56 Nigel: The transition request has gone through but we can amend it. 14:16:04 .. I'm not hugely comfortable with this. 14:16:18 Pierre: If we are not comfortable with it there may be alternatives but we should talk about 14:16:36 .. it because there's a significant risk that we may have to modify features and the way 14:16:45 .. they are formulated, just because of the sheer number of them. 14:17:01 Glenn: Changing the feature list is not adding or subtracting syntactic or semantic 14:17:07 .. components of the specification. 14:18:18 Nigel: Here's a test: if an implementation supported a feature and that feature definition 14:18:28 .. was changed then it could cause that implementation to become non-conformant, so 14:18:50 .. from that point of view it is a normative provision and the change would be substantive. 14:18:52 Pierre: I agree. 14:18:56 Glenn: I agree. 14:19:07 Pierre: Then if we don't give ourselves that permission then what can we do? 14:19:23 Glenn: We can move it to TTML2 2nd Ed. We could note informatively that we intend to 14:19:36 .. make certain changes but that due to timing we were not able to do it in 1st Ed. 14:19:59 Nigel: Previously we tried to make editions non-substantive in change. 14:20:09 Glenn: It would have to go through the CR process again. 14:20:19 .. I wouldn't be surprised if we don't have other normative changes given the large number 14:20:22 .. of features. 14:20:38 Pierre: I understand the rules as they're written right now, but this is pretty inefficient. 14:20:56 .. Refactoring features is highly unlikely in practice to cause interoperability issues. 14:21:04 Nigel: I disagree. 14:21:11 Pierre: Can you point to such an implementation? 14:21:23 Glenn: Back to the point about making implementations non-compliant, it depends on the 14:21:40 .. implementation. If the implementation depends on the override route, the first processing 14:21:55 .. step of construct effective processor profile, then the implementation can set it to 14:22:18 .. whatever it wants. How many processors will not take that route? 14:22:43 Nigel: We have to apply this rule to content conformance and that is more likely to be 14:22:45 .. affected. 14:23:12 Glenn: If you define a content profile and use it for validation and then add a new feature 14:23:26 .. that could not have been prohibited but add that prohibition based on the new feature 14:23:44 .. then that's not going to be a problem. If you change the semantics of existing designators 14:24:01 .. then you may end up prohibiting syntax that was not previously prohibited. 14:24:33 Nigel: If you're going to create the content profile mechanism then you have to allow it to 14:24:35 .. be used safely. 14:24:55 Glenn: Ok. Clearly we can make changes on the way to 2nd Ed if we go through a CR process. 14:25:10 .. So going back to the question about practical issue? I am of a mind that it is very low risk 14:25:14 .. in causing a practical issue. 14:25:23 Nigel: That may be true, but it's not the test. 14:25:26 Glenn: That's correct. 14:25:35 .. If we have a consensus in the group we can present that. 14:27:06 Nigel: Can I make a proposal that we add a bullet to the at risk feature list to notify readers 14:27:27 .. that the definitions of feature designators may change. If we can do that for features 14:27:41 .. and then make the substantive change at PR then I'm willing to see if we can do it for 14:28:12 .. feature designators too. 14:28:18 Glenn: Like it. 14:28:30 s/Li/I li 14:28:50 .. Just adding a #profile-version-2 bullet to the at risk list might do it. 14:29:16 Nigel: My understanding is that the at risk list is for features that can be dropped but not 14:29:18 .. changed. 14:29:25 Thierry: You're only allowed "drop". 14:29:57 .. If you change a feature and it is substantial then you have to issue a new CR. 14:30:38 Nigel: Pierre, are you concerned that you won't be able to complete a review of the TTML2 14:30:48 .. feature designators during the review period? 14:30:56 Pierre: I expect to be done ahead of next week. 14:31:16 Nigel: In that case do we really need to worry about this? 14:31:36 Glenn: I'd be satisfied to not change the at risk list and if we get a request to change then 14:31:51 .. use the standard route to deal with it, i.e. to add informative text until the next edition. 14:31:56 Nigel: I think that might be the best way. 14:32:15 Glenn: We already have a changes document. Eventually we will probably have a new section 14:32:27 .. changes from CR2 to PR and by definition they would all need to be marked as editorial 14:32:41 .. but we could prominently point out editorial changes of this type, that are warnings to 14:32:49 .. the reader that something we found will be changed in the near future. 14:32:54 Nigel: Sounds like a good idea to me. 14:33:17 Nigel: I think we've circled round on this one and concluded that we will take no action. 14:33:21 .. Any other views? 14:33:25 .. 14:33:33 .. Ok that's a 'no' so let's move on. 14:34:05 .. This arose from the question about merging approved pull requests now. Any other 14:34:08 .. questions or points on that? 14:34:14 .. 14:34:38 .. I'm taking silence as assent, so Editor(s) you can go ahead and merge the following pull 14:35:00 .. requests: #836, #842, #843, #844 and #845. 14:35:17 .. Noting that 843, 844 and 845 are labelled "substantive". 14:35:51 Nigel: Any more issues from you on TTML2 Glenn? 14:35:53 Glenn: No. 14:36:54 Nigel: The other point I wanted to raise is that we're making change to the document 14:37:10 .. during the CfC and it would seem fair to allow it to stabilise. Are there any other 14:37:15 .. pull requests expected? 14:37:58 Glenn: There's one for issue 830 and the other for 834 which tweaks the base-related 14:38:15 .. features. It is going to involve adding a new feature called #base-general. To make it 14:38:28 .. consistent with other definitions and the ability to prohibit the more general use of #base 14:39:04 Nigel: There are several editorial issues too. 14:39:24 Pierre: Glenn and I discussed 846 and realised it hadn't been opened as an issue yet. 14:39:38 .. I expect to be done tomorrow with my review so hopefully we'll be very close tomorrow. 14:40:03 Nigel: Can we set a target to merge all the pull requests by the end of tomorrow? 14:40:08 Pierre: Monday is more realistic. 14:40:12 Glenn: I agree. 14:40:46 Nigel: OK 14:41:49 .. I issued the CfC on Wednesday 13th June, so end of Tuesday is the end of the CfC. 14:42:06 .. So that gives 1 day for final post-pull-request-merge reviews before the end of the CfC. 14:42:14 .. It's pushing the limits a little! 14:42:36 Glenn: Starting on the 26th, if we finish merges on the Monday, I plan to do the normal 14:42:53 .. pubrules and link checking which requires some minor tweaks which will require at least 14:43:04 .. one pull request. I'll need someone at hand to approve those quickly so I can merge them. 14:43:17 .. By the end of the 27th I need a package to send to staff for upload for CR2 if it is going 14:43:21 .. to be published on the 28th. 14:43:32 Thierry: The webmaster usually needs 2 days. 14:43:43 Glenn: If we get that done on the 26th would that be adequate? 14:43:58 Thierry: Yes it would be better at the end of the 26th if you can submit a package then 14:44:10 .. I can take care of it late on the Tuesday or early morning Wednesday my time. 14:44:27 Glenn: OK I'll make that a date then. I'll probably start doing the pubrules and have it done 14:44:30 .. by the 25th as well. 14:44:34 Nigel: That'd be good, thank you. 14:44:55 Glenn: I'll need help from another committer who can approve requests over the weekend. 14:44:59 Pierre: I plan to be around. 14:45:37 Nigel: With notice I will be able to also. 14:45:49 Glenn: If you could be able to check your email once a day between now and Monday that 14:45:53 .. would be adequate. 14:46:19 Nigel: Ok, with the proviso that if there's anything strange or unexpected or complicated 14:46:54 .. then I will probably block merging. We really need to ramp down the significance of 14:47:00 .. any changes from now on! 14:47:49 Pierre: +1 with a proviso that we need to avoid substantial changes. But if there is a real 14:48:37 .. blocker then it is not a reasonable answer to wait until 2nd Ed. especially if everyone agrees on the solution. 14:48:52 Nigel: If something substantive does come up that needs a significant change then I would 14:49:07 .. rather wait a few more days now than wait until 2nd Ed. 14:49:10 Pierre: Exactly. 14:51:59 Nigel: Included in the scope of those changes to be merged as soon as possible is the 14:52:17 .. branch with the updates to changes on that you were working on Glenn. 14:52:24 Glenn: I can get that done by tomorrow. 14:52:38 Nigel: Then we can modify the transition request to point to the ED. 14:52:43 Glenn: [has to drop off the call] 14:53:20 Topic: IMSC 1.1 requirements 14:53:27 Nigel: I think we had one issue to look at, #372. 14:53:57 Topic: Consider TTML feature(s) for rw/rh units imsc#372 14:54:04 github: https://github.com/w3c/imsc/issues/372 14:55:12 Nigel: My understanding of rw and rh was that they are beneficial especially with fontSize. 14:55:26 Pierre: Today you can achieve the same effect using `c`. It's not pretty but you can achieve 14:55:29 .. that effect. 14:55:43 .. We have discussed those requirements for many months and nobody has suggested we 14:56:06 .. add them. I think it is in the "too late" category. I'd be more sympathetic if there were no 14:56:09 .. other way to achieve it. 14:56:14 Nigel: Why are we too late? 14:56:35 Pierre: We are about to go to CR2 and there's a cost for supporting container related dimensions. 14:57:16 Nigel: A syntactic cost, given that the semantic is already feasible. 14:58:04 Cyril: It's not because it's been there for months that we cannot change it. We have to 14:58:17 .. acknowledge we have mostly been working on TTML2 to finish it, so we should give 14:58:46 .. ourselves some quality time to look again at the requirements for IMSC 1.1. 14:58:59 Nigel: +1 My time has been taken up by TTML2 mainly and I would like that opportunity. 14:59:41 Pierre: There's a cost to implementing it. 15:00:30 .. So far nobody has made the argument why it is required. Don't get me wrong, I think 15:00:41 .. it might be useful, but just nobody has explained why it is required. 15:01:09 Nigel: From my perspective the requirement is driven by the errors that I see when QAing 15:01:22 .. TTML documents that I see, where people get the % calculations wrong. 15:02:44 Pierre: I don't expect anyone to adopt it. 15:03:03 Nigel: If it is absent from IMSC 1.1 then hypothetically EBU could not adopt it say in EBU-TT-D. 15:03:16 Pierre: If there were a liaison from EBU saying they wanted it then it would make the argument, 15:03:19 .. but there is not one. 15:03:38 Nigel: I'm making this comment from my own experience, that c units cause difficulties 15:04:17 .. and we should move towards rw and rh. 15:05:14 Cyril: I don't want to take a closed decision now - I need time to think about this. 15:05:40 Pierre: If this is needed then it should be raised as an issue against the requirements. 15:05:51 Nigel: Arguably Stefan has raised this issue on the wrong repo. 15:06:08 Pierre: Cyril, if Netflix is interested in adding rw and rh I ask that you do it super soon so 15:06:14 .. we can get it in and get it done. 15:06:25 Cyril: I don't think we need it but I will cross check today or tomorrow. 15:06:41 Pierre: Super. Nigel, if EBU has IMSC 1.1 adoption on its roadmap and has strong feelings 15:06:50 .. about rw and rh it would be good to know. 15:07:09 Nigel: I am not expecting any such statement. 15:07:21 Pierre: Or from anyone who plans to use IMSC 1.1 and has substantive input, now is the time. 15:09:14 Nigel: I've raised w3c/imsc-vnext-reqs#33 for this. 15:10:01 SUMMARY: Feature discussed, different viewpoints currently remain, requirements issue raised. 15:10:35 github-bot, end topic 15:10:45 Topic: IMSC 1.1 15:10:57 Pierre: I'm making great progress and should have something to present for review later 15:11:11 .. today, refactoring the features table to match TTML2 and fix some of the outstanding issues. 15:11:36 Nigel: Great! Did you have a view on the labels and colours question? 15:12:04 Pierre: Yes, I really liked where you and Stefan ended up. I plan to implement something 15:12:13 .. along the lines of what you have, putting the background and rounded corners on the 15:12:28 .. permitted/deprecated/permitted-deprecated label itself. 15:12:36 Nigel: Looking forward to seeing that. 15:13:17 Pierre: Thank you for doing all the prototyping work, that makes it a lot easier. 15:13:28 .. I plan to address that at the last moment when we are happy with the features table. 15:13:40 rrsagent, make minutes 15:13:40 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2018/06/21-tt-minutes.html nigel 15:13:48 Pierre: Can we talk about #366? 15:14:12 Topic: tts:position should be allowed on region only imsc#366 15:14:18 github: https://github.com/w3c/imsc/issues/366 15:15:13 Pierre: My impression is that we have trained people not to use origin and extent on content 15:15:25 .. elements. Certainly in IMF and ATSC we have trained people not to do it. 15:15:38 .. imsc.js and TTPE and EBU-TT-D does not support it, so in fact I think the trend has 15:15:50 .. been the opposite, that we have reiterated that you cannot do it. We have been saying 15:16:04 .. that for the past 2 years and I'm finally getting to the point where I'm not seeing it anymore. 15:16:26 Nigel: Now I really want to make sure it is on the at risk list for TTML2 because I really 15:16:30 .. don't want to support it. 15:16:45 Pierre: Based on my experience in imsc.js the feature really breaks the way TTML was 15:17:02 .. designed. Unless someone stands up to say they really want it I don't think we should do it. 15:17:26 Nigel: It is not on the at risk list for TTML2 CR2. 15:18:08 Pierre: TTPE doesn't support it in TTML1, I'm not sure if it supports it in TTML2. 15:18:46 Nigel: Does anyone want to take the action to raise an issue to add the 15:19:03 .. `#region-implied-animation ` to the at risk list for TTML2? 15:19:10 Pierre: I think it's reasonable to add it. 15:19:25 Nigel: If we can close this meeting early then I'll go ahead and do that. 15:21:21 .. Going back to the issue you want to only allow position on region? Is that only on text profile? 15:21:36 Pierre: The same restrictions on tts:origin should be placed on tts:position, whatever those are. 15:22:05 Nigel: Don't you want position on image? 15:22:14 Pierre: You put it on the region that the image is in. 15:22:20 Nigel: And you only allow one image per region? 15:22:25 Pierre: Correct, just like in IMSC1. 15:23:33 RESOLUTION: We will not support `#region-implied-animation ` in IMSC 1.1. 15:23:44 Nigel: We also have another resolution to do what the issue requests. 15:24:15 RESOLUTION: Apply the same constraints that exist on `tts:origin` to `tts:position`. 15:24:58 github-bot, end topic 15:30:14 Topic: CSS actions review 15:30:18 action-512? 15:30:18 action-512 -- Pierre-Anthony Lemieux to Raise an issue with css wg requesting support for lineshear -- due 2018-06-21 -- OPEN 15:30:18 https://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/tracker/actions/512 15:30:44 Nigel: The due date is today! 15:30:53 Pierre: realistically I will not get to this for another two weeks or so. 15:30:56 s/re/RE 15:30:59 s/RE/Re 15:31:30 Nigel: I've updated the due date to 5th July. 15:31:50 Topic: Meeting close 15:32:02 Nigel: We've completed our agenda for today, thank you everyone. [adjourns meeting] 15:32:57 rrsagent, make minutes 15:32:57 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2018/06/21-tt-minutes.html nigel 15:40:45 scribeOptions: -final -noEmbedDiagnostics 15:40:46 rrsagent, make minutes 15:40:46 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2018/06/21-tt-minutes.html nigel 16:27:21 Zakim has left #tt