14:00:23 RRSAgent has joined #tt 14:00:23 logging to https://www.w3.org/2018/07/19-tt-irc 14:00:25 RRSAgent, make logs public 14:00:25 Zakim has joined #tt 14:00:27 Meeting: Timed Text Working Group Teleconference 14:00:27 Date: 19 July 2018 14:00:43 Log: https://www.w3.org/2018/07/19-tt-irc 14:01:56 tmichel has joined #tt 14:03:13 Present: Cyril, Nigel, Andreas, Glenn, Thierry 14:03:25 Chair: Nigel 14:03:28 scribe: nigel 14:03:42 glenn has joined #tt 14:04:35 Present+ Andreas, Pierre 14:05:00 Topic: This meeting 14:05:10 atai2 has joined #tt 14:05:22 Nigel: For today we need to cover publication timelines, and there are some TTML2 issues 14:05:27 .. marked for the agenda. 14:05:49 .. Any particular points anyone wants to make sure we cover, or Other Business? 14:05:55 group: [silence] 14:06:12 Nigel: Nobody has come back to me objecting to moving the basis of the meeting time 14:06:27 .. to UTC from Boston time, so that's what I'll do as of next week, assuming no 14:06:34 .. objections in the intervening period. 14:07:35 Pierre: By UTC you mean ZULU or UK time? 14:07:39 Nigel: UTC time 14:08:04 q+ 14:08:11 Pierre: That will shift the meeting time during DST - why do that? 14:08:27 Andreas: I'm not sure if you were on the call last week when I proposed this. It was 14:08:38 .. discussed at the AC meeting, and lots of members said Boston time is not very 14:08:49 .. convenient to see when a specific meeting is, so they proposed to shift to UTC 14:09:03 .. instead of Boston. Although I think it is not an official rule there was overwhelming 14:09:10 .. support for it and some groups already shifted to it. 14:09:13 .. I just proposed it last week. 14:09:27 Glenn: When will it change our time, at the transition of DST, right? 14:09:29 Nigel: Yes 14:10:11 Glenn: Other than 2 days a year it will make no difference? 14:10:31 Nigel: We would be able to choose when to shift to track DST. 14:10:36 Glenn: I don't see any problem with that. 14:11:13 Topic: Publication timings 14:11:31 Nigel: We've just requested transition of IMSC 1.1 to CR2. 14:11:44 .. Looking ahead we're about to request transition of TTML1 3rd Ed to CR2, 14:11:52 .. and we've just transitioned TTML2 to CR2. 14:12:10 .. However some issues have been raised on TTML2 since CR2 that can most 14:12:29 .. straightforwardly (in terms of the Process) be handled by issuing TTML2 CR3. 14:12:44 .. There was concern about pushing back the Rec date of TTML2, which this would do, 14:12:59 .. but the flip side as Glenn noted in the week is it will give more time for implementation 14:13:03 .. and testing work. 14:15:37 .. Given that there are some changes being proposed to TTML2 that look important 14:15:51 .. and that are probably substantive, even though I could try making the case that they 14:16:03 .. are editorial, and given where we are with TTML1 3rd Ed, I think I'd like to propose that 14:16:18 .. we move to a mode where we publish TTML1 3rd Ed and TTML2 transitions 14:16:42 .. simultaneously, i.e. TTML1 3rd Ed CR2 and TTML2 CR3, and then later PR and hopefully 14:16:51 .. Rec, and possibly even IMSC 1.1 Rec at the same time if that is possible. 14:16:57 .. Any thoughts on that proposal? 14:17:17 Glenn: As I think I pointed out, this puts a 47 day delay into the TTML2 schedule as it 14:17:30 .. currently stands if we don't try to track TTML1 3rd Ed and if we don't make that change 14:17:38 cyril has joined #tt 14:17:45 .. at least considering it substantive. Instead of Sep 13 for Rec it changes to Oct 30. 14:17:49 pal has joined #tt 14:17:52 q+ 14:18:00 .. The advantage of putting them in sync is that they would all go to PR at the same date 14:18:12 .. which is Sep 25 to make an Oct 30 final Rec date and to do that we would need to 14:18:28 .. go to CR3 on Aug 9, which means we would have to start the CfC in time to do that, 14:18:43 .. which by my estimation would have to begin July 26 at the latest or possibly July 25. 14:18:55 .. That gives us only a few days to prepare CR3 which I think is doable if we limit the 14:19:02 .. scope of what we are doing to just a few pull requests. 14:19:18 .. Some of those pull requests on TTML2 are marked for the PR milestone. We could 14:19:33 .. do them during CR3 or at PR as long as they are editorial. 14:19:51 .. We could get a new CR3 draft out the door for a CfC then publish on Aug 9 on the 14:20:09 q+ 14:20:11 .. same day as TTML1 3rd Ed CR2. I think it's feasible. I'd like to hear from anyone if 14:20:29 .. there are any views about that. 14:20:39 Cyril: The situation is not ideal; TTML2 has already been delayed for too long so we 14:20:52 .. should try to minimise any delay if we can. Especially if the delays are created by the 14:21:09 .. Process we should check with W3S if there are any ways we can mitigate that, like 14:21:26 .. changing the reference on the way to PR. However we aren't ready for PR for TTML2 14:21:50 .. anyway because we don't have the implementation report. So I'd rather make sure 14:22:00 .. we go to PR for TTML2 because we have found a date that is reasonable in terms of 14:22:11 .. producing the implementation report and the test suite, which is really the problem. 14:22:23 .. The deadlines for publication are internal to W3C and W3C should be able to resolve 14:22:36 .. that problem. The situation is becoming critical because we have a chain of dependencies. 14:22:56 .. Not just TTML2 on TTML1, but also MPEG, which needs IMSC 1.1 to become finalised. 14:23:01 Nigel: What's the deadline for that? 14:23:03 Cyril: I will check. 14:23:14 Pierre: Last time I checked Oct 30 was an appropriate deadline for MPEG. 14:23:27 .. I really like the idea of making it simple on ourselves and targeting publication of 14:23:36 .. IMSC 1.1, TTML1 3rd Ed and TTML2 all synchronised on Oct 30. 14:23:51 Cyril: I don't think that makes it simpler for us. The sooner we can get a spec out of the 14:23:59 .. door the more time we have to focus on the next one. 14:24:15 Pierre: The last month is no effort for us, so I don't think it makes a big difference. 14:24:31 Glenn: The time between the PR and the Rec has some stretch. Right now with these 14:24:45 .. dates we would have to go to PR on Sep 25 for Oct 30 Rec, which is probably longer 14:24:56 .. than is needed, but that is what Philippe's schedule tool produces right now. The 14:25:11 .. upside is that instead of Aug 9 for TTML2 PR which is coming very quickly we would 14:25:25 .. have until Sep 25 which works out to I think 47 days extra for work on test suite and 14:25:34 .. implementation report which would be a very useful additional space in which to do that. 14:25:46 .. Completing them by Aug 9 is going to be very challenging. 14:25:49 Nigel: +1 14:26:06 .. I don't see how it would even be possible given where we are, realistically. 14:26:22 Cyril: What is a reasonable date for producing the implementation report and test suite? 14:26:51 Glenn: Regardless of a CR3 when is the earliest we could produce a PR? 14:26:56 s/Glenn/Cyril 14:27:14 Glenn: We are only one party to the implementation report. I'm having to timeslice between 14:27:33 .. spec work and test suite writing. I'm nominally on holiday right now until 23rd July, 14:27:49 q+ 14:28:04 .. and will be back on 24th, so that would technically leave me 16 days... 14:28:15 Nigel: The question is how much time do we really need to finish the test report? 14:28:22 Glenn: I can't answer that question. 14:28:26 Cyril: So we are not near PR? 14:28:32 Cyril: I can't say that right now. 14:28:36 s/Cyril/Glenn 14:28:59 .. I have pushed most of the validation tests to the test suite but not any of the rendering 14:29:11 .. tests yet. My expectation is that other implementers will contribute tests as well. 14:29:17 Cyril: We should, yes. 14:29:19 Nigel: Yes. 14:29:30 q- 14:29:39 ack atai 14:30:01 Andreas: Is there an overview of which in-flight tests are missing? 14:30:12 .. It is possibly on all of us to contribute something so if we could coordinate this then 14:30:16 .. it could speed up the process. 14:30:17 Nigel: +1 14:31:09 -> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1gtUAV0r4Zd1NUSEcFclBqOrk41pOyaOTfaLxc7boBeQ/edit?usp=sharing Current draft Implementation report spreadsheet 14:31:19 Cyril: [has to drop off the call] 14:31:39 Glenn: That spreadsheet does not show mapping between features and tests yet. It is on 14:31:49 .. my work list to add a table that does that and I probably won't be able to start work 14:32:09 .. on that until 26th July given I will have to focus on CR3 completion before then. 14:32:27 Nigel: Thank you 14:33:02 Glenn: This activity is part of Skynav's internal implementation activity. 14:33:57 Nigel: It's a tricky thing to coordinate contribution of tests - I'm happy to take any suggestions! 14:34:14 Andreas: For the specifications we have an Editor. For the Test Suite I don't know if anyone 14:34:27 .. has the lead on it. If someone like Glenn is actually working on some tests, say there 14:34:40 .. are 50 missing and Glenn is working on 25 then it would be inefficient if others would 14:34:50 .. also work on those same 25. Just my immediate thought. 14:35:15 Glenn: The way I've organised the current TTML2 tests repo is I have 3 directories: 14:35:27 .. valid, invalid and resources, which test for validity, invalidity and resource files. 14:35:42 .. My plan was to add a presentation directory as well for populating presentation tests. 14:36:02 .. We could have, say, a contrib directory under which organisations that wish to contribute 14:36:20 .. tests can be done, then tests can be merged from contrib/XXX into the top level as 14:36:37 .. we proceed. Under the contrib tests we could allow push with little oversight but 14:36:42 q+ 14:36:52 .. we would scrutinise them before moving them to the official tests. 14:36:54 ack cyril 14:36:58 ack atai 14:37:12 Andreas: I think that's not I asked for - it possibly makes it more complicated. If it is 14:37:24 .. clear how the tests are organised then we or I can make a pull request and make the test 14:37:37 .. What I'm asking for is if there are features that need tests. If there's a list then we can 14:37:49 .. see who is working on it. 14:38:04 .. The minimum required is, for each feature, at least one test file and one rendering? 14:38:11 .. Or a valid and an invalid and a rendering? 14:38:22 Nigel: I think it's a valid one, an invalid one and a rendering. 14:38:32 .. The Valid ones can be Rendering ones too. 14:38:46 Glenn: True, but the ones written right now are designed to test the validation process. 14:39:00 .. For example many of the style validation tests simply put a style attribute in a style 14:39:10 .. in the head without referencing it. It just tests for parsing. 14:39:43 Glenn: One thing we should keep in mind is we are not testing for interoperability, but 14:39:58 .. to validate the specification, to demonstrate that there are implementations of features 14:40:05 .. and that they are implementable. 14:40:16 .. This directs how we create the test suite. 14:40:28 .. Having said that, that means that for testing implementability we don't have to go 14:40:40 .. as far as one would typically do in a product for testing interoperability. 14:40:55 .. We don't have a document requirements set for any test suite in TTWG at the moment. 14:41:11 .. Any individual contributing tests up to now has used their own philosophical requirements. 14:41:21 .. I think we should try to do the minimum that satisfies the PR transition request. 14:41:24 Andreas: I agree. 14:42:21 Nigel: We do effectively have a list, having all the features introduced in TTML2 and for 14:42:35 .. each one those three things, a validating test, a non-validating test and a rendering test. 14:42:50 Glenn: I plan to work on creating that list so we can populate it with tests we have. 14:44:02 Andreas: This list makes sense. Then we can see where we can contribute tests. 14:44:14 .. For example if there is no TTPE support and no IMSC.js support then it is difficult to 14:44:25 .. get a rendering. I would like to see if we could contribute something first of all. 14:44:36 .. We are only working on features selected by IMSC 1.1. If Glenn is already doing it then 14:46:07 .. we don't have to, but if there are gaps then we can consider what to fill in. 14:46:17 Nigel: I'm hearing that there are no presentation tests yet. 14:46:27 Glenn: Actually we have a large number of tests for TTPE at the moment. 14:47:00 .. There may be multiple entries for each feature, with a test name, then validity tests, invalidity tests and presentation tests. 14:47:09 .. Then for each feature you would be able to see the collection of tests. 14:47:20 .. I'll be able to populate that table at least starting with those 100 test files that cover 14:47:31 .. multiple features. Those cover probably most if not all of the features that are going 14:47:45 .. to be in IMSC 1.1. There may be a few exceptions. Since those are the features we were 14:47:58 .. focusing on implementing first we probably have most of them covered. 14:48:11 .. The ones we're focusing on at the moment are those marked as at risk, aside from the 14:48:24 .. audio features, so I'd look to you Nigel to fill that gap. 14:48:27 Nigel: Ok I can do that. 14:48:43 Glenn: I'm fairly confident that all of the features will have tests and presentation support 14:48:46 .. for all three categories. 14:49:01 Andreas: Okay that sounds good. If you can provide the table by next week's call then 14:49:03 .. we can start there. 14:49:11 Glenn: I think I can have it in place by next Thursday. 14:51:04 Sorry I must leave for a few minutes. 14:51:27 Nigel: Going back to the top, it seems that issuing a TTML2 CR3 CfC as early as possible 14:51:44 .. next week has general approval and is unlikely to materially affect the Rec date 14:52:01 .. significantly, and there's support for synchronous publication of TTML1 3rd Ed, TTML2 14:52:20 .. and IMSC 1.1 as Rec by end October at the latest. So that's the plan I'll try to go with. 14:52:44 .. In terms of testing, I don't think there's much more to add - summarising, work is in 14:52:53 .. progress, and I'm on the hook for audio related tests. 14:53:14 .. And Glenn will summarise the state of existing tests in a table by next week's call. 14:53:48 Nigel: Any other points before we move on? 14:53:59 Pierre: Since we have agreement on that it would be good if the Chair could craft the 14:54:17 .. timeline, which would be close to what Thierry already did, and send it to W3 Staff as 14:54:28 .. a heads-up so they can highlight any reason it might not work, and we can know up 14:54:34 .. front if we are going to run into trouble. 14:54:41 Nigel: Good suggestion, I will take that action. 14:55:16 ACTION: Nigel Draft a timeline for TTML1, TTML2 and IMSC 1.1 publication and share with plh and tmichel as advance notice 14:55:17 Created ACTION-514 - Draft a timeline for ttml1, ttml2 and imsc 1.1 publication and share with plh and tmichel as advance notice [on Nigel Megitt - due 2018-07-26]. 14:55:39 Topic: TTML1 Actions, Pull Requests and Issues 14:56:11 Nigel: First thing to note is that the "crafty plan" regarding changing the reference to 14:56:12 https://w3c.github.io/spec-releases/milestones/?rec=2018-10-30&noFPWD=true 14:56:33 here is PLH's schedule tool working back from REC on 10/30 14:56:37 Nigel: TTML1 3rd Ed from TTML2 is no longer needed and we are no longer concerned 14:56:55 .. about the exclusion period for TTML1 being longer than TTML2 if we go ahead with 14:56:59 .. the plan just discussed. 14:57:23 Nigel: Secondly, I did issue the CfC to publish TTML1 3rd Ed CR2 on Tuesday. 14:57:53 .. Is there anything else to discuss on TTML1? 14:58:04 Pierre: I think we're good unless we want to reflect changes in TTML2 back in TTML1! 14:58:18 .. We'll have to keep careful track of any substantive changes to TTML2. 14:58:37 Glenn: There's only 7 pull requests on TTML2 CR3. Three are the substantive ones which 14:58:48 .. are the change to the normative ref to TTML1, the addition of image and audio to the 14:59:02 .. list of content elements, and scaling back animatability. Those are my current limited 14:59:13 .. set and I don't anticipate any further ones unless someone pulls something out of the 14:59:17 .. hat in the next few days. 14:59:33 Pierre: I remember some modifications to style resolution that I have not studied yet. 14:59:49 Glenn: Right now I think they are completely editorial. Please do review them. I marked them 15:00:03 .. as PR milestone. We have until Nov 25 or a bit before to put in place other editorial 15:00:13 .. fixes. If someone thinks they are substantive we can scale them back to make sure 15:00:23 .. they are editorial. It is not my intent that any of those should have a substantive effect. 15:00:37 Pierre: As we merge those things if they impact TTML1 we should consider back-porting 15:00:46 .. them, without prejudice one way or the other. 15:00:55 Glenn: Right, the three substantive ones are not relevant to TTML1. 15:01:30 Topic: TTML2 Actions, Pull Requests and Issues 15:04:42 Nigel: Are there any things to discuss other than stuff marked for the Agenda? 15:05:01 https://github.com/w3c/ttml2/labels/agenda 15:05:37 Nigel: That has 8 things on it. 15:06:01 Topic: Support for roll-up and paint-on captions. ttml2#443 15:06:07 github: https://github.com/w3c/ttml2/issues/443 15:06:17 Glenn: This is the one where we need to send a message to Glenn Goldstein. 15:06:29 Nigel: Yes that's for me. We began working on this a couple of weeks ago and then 15:06:54 .. Glenn came into the discussion - it wasn't at the forefront of my mind that he is actually 15:07:17 .. a member of this WG. So he's seen something in preparation, but I haven't yet formally 15:07:19 .. sent it. 15:07:23 .. Action still with me. 15:07:44 .. Is there anything to comment on regarding the draft text? 15:07:56 group: [silence] 15:08:04 Glenn: I would say go ahead and send it, so the issue can be closed. 15:08:32 SUMMARY: Nigel to review status of the draft and send if no further changes are needed. 15:09:51 Topic: Unicode bidi should probably not be animatable. ttml2#881 15:09:59 github: https://github.com/w3c/ttml2/issues/881 15:10:46 Glenn: I put this on the agenda because I posted a pull request on it, and I had a couple 15:10:49 .. of open questions for the group. 15:10:56 .. The pull request is #914. 15:11:16 .. It turns out that unicodeBidi is discretely animatable in TTML1. The most we can do 15:11:32 .. is deprecate it, and if we do then we should deprecate animation of direction too. I've 15:11:38 .. put that deprecation into this pull request. 15:11:46 .. I did three more changes: 15:12:04 .. 1. Scaled back continuous animation to only values that represent alpha, RGB colors, luminanceGain and position coordinates. 15:12:21 .. All other styles that were previously marked as continuously animatable I have moved back 15:12:24 .. to discrete only. 15:12:42 Nigel: I need to ask for a change there, because the pan and gain attributes need to be 15:12:48 .. continuously animatable to be useful. 15:13:04 Glenn: I'm sorry, I did leave pan and gain. I changed pitch to discrete only, because I 15:13:13 .. didn't see a use case for continuous animation of pitch. 15:13:42 Nigel: I don't think animation of pitch and rate has any use case at all. 15:14:25 sorry I am back 15:15:37 Nigel: Why would you discretely animate the rate, for example, as opposed to splitting the 15:16:06 .. text up into different spans and putting different rates on each one? 15:16:19 Glenn: I see what you mean, the timing of those set transitions related to the text is 15:16:31 .. unknown to the author. I'll mark them as "none" for animation. 15:16:51 Nigel: Sorry I interrupted your list. 15:17:15 Glenn: 2. Add a note under the section that defines the style properties that describes 15:17:27 .. the style property definition tables and to provide some information on the terms we 15:17:43 .. are using in the animatable row, in particular we never said what discrete and continuous 15:17:55 .. means. 15:19:01 SUMMARY: @skynavga to modify speak and pitch to make them non-animatable. 15:20:51 Nigel: I don't see the need to deprecate discrete animation of unicodeBidi and direction. 15:22:37 Glenn: It is more consistent with the CSS recommendation. 15:22:57 Pierre: I don't see a need to deprecate use of set with a style property just because it 15:23:12 .. doesn't seem useful to use. I think I'm of the same mind as Nigel that there's no need 15:23:23 .. to deprecate it, but I think Glenn is pointing to a bigger issue? 15:24:14 Glenn: You cannot animate the content of text but if you [scribe failure] 15:24:33 .. For example in TTPE the style attributes are mapped to the UnicodeBidi control characters 15:24:46 .. and if you say they can be animated now you have to re-run the Unicode Bidi algorithm. 15:25:03 Pierre: Right, but as Nigel pointed out, set is no different than creating a bunch of ISDs 15:25:20 .. each one with a different value of the style properties. So from an implementation 15:25:25 .. perspective there's no difference. 15:25:39 Glenn: I agree, and I think it actually works in TTPE that way, but I do want to mention 15:26:06 .. the reason this came up was to satisfy the CSS WG decision. 15:26:20 Nigel: I think that CSS WG decision was about CSS animation including continuous animation. 15:26:43 Glenn: They just wanted to make it not animatable at all. 15:26:54 Nigel: I don't think they make the distinction between continuous and discrete. 15:27:03 Pierre: My feeling on this is we should not spend time deprecating this. 15:27:19 Glenn: Okay, it's easy enough to revert that. I'm happy to deprecate it. 15:27:30 Pierre: Once you've committed to supporting set it really doesn't matter. 15:27:43 Glenn: Yes, that's correct, but it does have a questionable impact on authoring. 15:28:09 Nigel: There's a majority view not to deprecate and no objection to not deprecating. 15:28:31 RESOLUTION: Do not deprecate discrete animation. 15:29:04 Topic: Clarify use of terms altitude, depth, and line gap; add non-normative… ttml2#890 15:29:10 github: https://github.com/w3c/ttml2/pull/890 15:29:21 Glenn: Here we have a couple of points from Andreas that I'm not agreeable with. 15:29:50 Andreas: I think we can limit the discussion on one or two points, the others I can accept as is. 15:30:03 .. My major point is with the reference. It's good to reference the OpenType specification 15:30:19 .. there is an ISO document but that is not accessible because it has to be paid for. 15:30:36 .. But there is a Microsoft version that is also referenced by CSS and other experts have 15:30:53 .. also referred to it in discussions I have. Either reference it or at least say for the reference 15:31:02 .. to the ISO document that the Microsoft one is also available. 15:31:27 Glenn: It is accessible but it costs money. We also have a precedent in this group and others 15:31:41 .. that ISO/ITU standards take precedent over national standards, and those in turn over 15:31:53 .. company documents. The Microsoft document is at the bottom of that list. In this group 15:32:16 .. we have always preferred international standards. Wikipedia states that the OpenType 15:32:27 q+ 15:32:36 .. standard is the ISO standard and quotes Microsoft as saying they are synchronised. 15:32:51 .. Readers will probably already know about Microsoft's documents. At most I'd be willing 15:33:04 .. to add an informative reference to the MS doc in addition to the current ISO reference. 15:33:08 ack atai 15:33:14 Andreas: I'm happy with doing that. 15:33:30 Glenn: I'll add an informative reference to the MS doc and leave the ISO doc as the main ref. 15:34:45 Andreas: One other thing is an editorial matter which you said had a typo. Would you add that text? 15:34:59 Glenn: The comma was already present. 15:35:08 Andreas: Okay 15:35:15 Glenn: I'll consider the proposal. 15:35:40 SUMMARY: @skynavga to consider editorial improvement and add informative reference to MS OpenType spec. 15:36:29 Topic: Add clip{Begin,End} attributes to tt:audio in schemas (#887). ttml2#897 15:36:34 github: https://github.com/w3c/ttml2/pull/897 15:36:44 Glenn: Added to agenda to prompt for review. 15:37:32 Nigel: I'm mid-review. One technical question: Glenn you added these into 15:37:57 .. the audio.attlist attributeGroup, whereas I saw an alternative way which is to add it 15:38:11 .. to the Audio.content.attrib.class attributeGroup. 15:39:05 Glenn: Simple explanation - it's a global not a local attribute without a namespace. 15:39:29 Nigel: Ah, interesting. 15:39:44 Glenn: Our convention is that global attributes are put into classes. 15:39:47 Nigel: Okay, thank you! 15:39:55 SUMMARY: Review to continue 15:40:24 Topic: Ensure audio and image (in presentation contexts) are treated as cont… ttml2#898 15:40:29 github: https://github.com/w3c/ttml2/pull/898 15:40:47 Glenn: I think I just wanted to note that I've moved this to substantive. We discussed earlier. 15:41:15 .. Pierre, you might want to take a look at this. It adds audio and image to content element. 15:41:25 .. During the last meeting you had some questions and were reluctant to make this change. 15:41:36 Pierre: Alright, em... 15:41:49 Glenn: I went through all instances of the phrase content element in TTML2 and found 15:41:54 .. no cases where it was not appropriate. 15:42:07 Pierre: I sense that we've already had this discussion somehow and you argued for the 15:42:17 .. opposite in the past, but you've done the research now? 15:42:26 Glenn: Yes. It took me about a day! 15:42:35 Pierre: I need time to think about it. I'll study it. 15:42:44 .. You're saying it's not embedded content, just content? 15:42:59 Glenn: It's still covered under embedded but also in content element. We already had 15:43:15 .. "presentation related" which included image but not audio. This attempts to make it 15:43:17 .. consistent. 15:43:39 Pierre: I'll add this to my review list, thanks for pointing me to it explicitly. 15:44:10 Topic: Editorial improvements for 'content element' usage (#892). ttml2#899 15:44:15 github: https://github.com/w3c/ttml2/pull/899 15:44:22 Glenn: This is a small number of editorial improvements. 15:44:36 .. Nigel you have an outstanding comment I need to look at. 15:44:38 Nigel: Yes 15:44:42 Glenn: We can do this offline. 15:44:53 Nigel: Ok 15:45:03 Topic: Editorial improvements to 11.3.1.2 Inline Regions (#903). ttml2#911 15:45:09 github: https://github.com/w3c/ttml2/pull/911 15:45:31 Nigel: Glenn, you and I had a bit of back and forth on this one. 15:45:45 Glenn: Yes, I need to process it some more, and I don't think we can resolve it right now. 15:45:57 .. It is marked for the PR as editorial so we have some time to get straight on this. 15:46:19 Nigel: Okay, let's continue offline. 15:46:28 github-bot, end topic 15:47:02 Topic: IMSC Actions, Pull Requests and Issues 15:47:08 Nigel: I'm not sure we have anything to cover on this today? 15:47:27 .. Thierry is there any news on the transition? 15:47:41 Thierry: No, I sent the TR on Monday and still don't have any news. Plh is on vacation this week 15:47:53 .. so I don't know if Ralph will process the transition request tomorrow. Maybe on Monday. 15:48:06 .. We have until Wednesday morning for me to get the approval to make the publication 15:48:20 .. request for publication on Thursday next week so we still have time. 15:48:28 Nigel: Thank you for the update. 15:49:34 Topic: IMSC vNext Requirements 15:49:44 Pierre: Nigel you opened an issue, but I think it was answered. 15:50:11 Topic: Since some style attributes are permitted in Image profile, permit `#initial` imsc-vnext-reqs#36 15:50:15 github: https://github.com/w3c/imsc-vnext-reqs/issues/36 15:50:43 Nigel: I think we're out of time to do anything about this in IMSC 1.1. We didn't action 15:50:50 .. this in the CR2 transition request. 15:51:02 Pierre: No, and the idea really is to modify the Image profile as little as possible, if at all. 15:51:16 .. I've not heard folk being unsatisfied with Image Profile. Users of the Text Profile were 15:51:29 .. quite vocal with strong opinions, but I've not seen any documented feedback on the 15:51:49 .. Image Profile so my philosophy is not to modify it without anyone expressing that opinion. 15:51:54 +1 15:51:57 .. Same applies to position. 15:52:04 Glenn: Did you add the new image element? 15:52:12 Pierre: Yes, and deprecated smpte:backgroundImage. 15:53:15 Nigel: I take your point, though it does seem inconsistent. 15:53:36 Glenn: How about tts:showBackground? Everyone seems to want to change that. 15:54:03 Pierre: If you're using an image you'd typically use a transparent background. 15:54:21 .. Basically I've seen a lot of full raster images for Image Profile. 15:54:53 .. What we can do about this is either close it as "won't do" (for now), or just leave it 15:55:03 .. open and mark for v.next. I think I'd rather just close it. 15:56:10 Pierre: Here the question is if someone cares. If nobody cares we should close it. I don't care! 15:56:32 Nigel: I don't have any plan to use Image Profile for anything, so it makes no difference to 15:56:35 .. me in usage. 15:56:41 Pierre: My suggestion would be to close it. 15:57:27 SUMMARY: No immediate requirement to `#initial` has been identified, closing with no action until such a requirement is raised. 15:57:32 github-bot, end topic 15:57:55 Nigel: I've labelled it as Wontfix and closed it. 15:59:11 Topic: Meeting close 15:59:25 Nigel: I need to add TTML Profile Registry to agenda for next time, since there's been 15:59:28 .. some discussion on it. 15:59:52 .. A reminder that Thierry sent details of early bird discount period for TPAC, so if you have 16:00:00 .. not registered but plan to, do it soon and save some money! 16:00:36 .. Unless someone wants to step in and Chair, we may not have meetings on 16th and 23rd August while I'm away. 16:00:55 .. If you do want to Chair, please let me know! 16:01:02 Pierre: I'll be away those dates too. 16:02:03 Nigel: Okay, thanks everyone! [adjourns meeting] 16:02:06 rrsagent, make minutes 16:02:06 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2018/07/19-tt-minutes.html nigel 16:09:05 atai2 has left #tt 16:09:39 Regrets: none 16:20:08 s/.. unknown to the author. I'll mark them as "none" for animation./Glenn: unknown to the author. I'll mark them as "none" for animation. 16:22:40 s/github-bot, end topic//g 16:23:47 rrsagent, make minutes 16:23:47 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2018/07/19-tt-minutes.html nigel 16:25:19 scribeOptions: -final -noEmbedDiagnostics 16:25:20 rrsagent, make minutes 16:25:20 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2018/07/19-tt-minutes.html nigel 17:48:51 Zakim has left #tt