14:00:16 RRSAgent has joined #tt 14:00:16 logging to https://www.w3.org/2018/07/26-tt-irc 14:00:18 RRSAgent, make logs public 14:00:18 Zakim has joined #tt 14:00:20 Meeting: Timed Text Working Group Teleconference 14:00:20 Date: 26 July 2018 14:03:01 scribe: nigel 14:03:10 Present: Andreas, Glenn, Pierre, Thierry, Nigel 14:03:14 Chair: Nigel 14:03:16 Regrets: Cyril 14:03:22 atai2 has joined #tt 14:03:22 Topic: This meeting 14:03:26 glenn has joined #tt 14:04:14 Nigel: Today we have this meeting agenda bash, and topics including 14:04:35 .. TTML1, TTML2, IMSC, CSS TTML Profile Registry. 14:05:08 .. One item of AOB from me is a reminder that we are subject to 14:05:18 -> https://www.w3.org/Consortium/cepc/ Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct 14:05:31 .. the reason for mentioning this is because we had an incident this week in which 14:05:50 .. at least a couple of people felt that we had not stayed within this code. 14:05:59 .. Of course that is not acceptable. 14:06:24 Nigel: There's a little more information at: 14:06:32 -> https://www.w3.org/Consortium/pwe/ Positive Work Environment Home Page 14:06:45 Nigel: which also describes procedures. 14:07:24 Pierre: On that topic, were the people who it was felt broke the code of ethics informed? 14:07:26 Nigel: Yes 14:07:28 Pierre: Thank you 14:08:03 Nigel: In terms of agenda stuff, and look ahead, we have meetings on 2nd and 9th August 14:08:29 Glenn: I want to object to the categorisation of expressions of frustration as violations of 14:08:30 q+ 14:08:54 .. the code of ethics and its a natural product of time constraints, and I have not been 14:09:20 .. informed of a violation of the code of ethics. A couple of people expressed concern, 14:09:28 .. Nigel did and Andreas did too, and that was it. 14:09:35 ack at 14:09:45 Andreas: I added a comment, now deleted, which is fine because it was in response to 14:09:54 .. a comment that was also deleted, because I found that a comment from Glenn was 14:10:05 .. breaching the CEPC defined by W3C. I don't think we need a big discussion on this but 14:10:15 .. from my side it clearly broke that and crossed the line and I want to make it clear that 14:10:29 .. this is not the way we work together. We need to follow the guideline from W3C. 14:10:41 .. This is not the first time I think that such red lines are crossed, so I wanted to remind 14:10:53 .. everyone on that. Okay, different people have different views on what is harassment etc 14:11:07 .. but it is clearly defined. I don't think there is any need for escalation now, but we need 14:11:19 .. to stay within it and be respectful regardless of frustration or not. 14:12:20 Nigel: I think I was clear in a private email that I felt that the behaviour was bullying, and my reasons for that. 14:12:32 Glenn: I just wanted to note that there was no Finding here, if you want to escalate it go ahead. 14:13:09 Nigel: Like Andreas I don't feel we need to escalate this now, but regardless of the opinion 14:13:23 .. of this event, it is worth reminding ourselves that we are subject to the CEPC. 14:13:40 Nigel: Back to the look-ahead, 14:14:01 d/Nigel: In terms of agenda stuff, and look ahead, we have meetings on 2nd and 9th August 14:14:07 d/Nigel: In terms of agenda stuff, and look ahead, we have meetings on 2nd and 9th August 14:14:14 Nigel: In terms of agenda stuff, and look ahead, we have meetings on 2nd and 9th August 14:14:45 .. And then two cancelled meetings on 16th and 23rd August, back on 30th August. 14:15:01 .. I have an action to propose some dates when we should plan for DST time changes, 14:15:06 .. which I have not yet done. 14:15:20 .. This is now we are basing the meeting time on UTC, which therefore needs to be 14:15:35 .. modified twice a year to minimise impact on members. 14:15:44 Pierre: Why are we making that change? 14:16:17 Nigel: This is in line with the AC direction of travel. 14:16:29 Pierre: I'm fairly sure that AC did not make a fixed resolution here. 14:16:42 Andreas: I was at the AC meeting where this came up. There were reasonable arguments 14:16:54 .. for it. It is really difficult if someone wants to join a meeting from outside and see when 14:17:07 .. it is and see when it is in Boston time. It is uncomfortable to schedule without using 14:17:19 .. a time zone converter. I brought this in and proposed it. I don't think we need a long 14:17:31 .. discussion on it. If someone objects we can stick to Boston time. I would like to move to UTC 14:17:42 .. but if there's an objection that is fine by me. 14:17:57 Pierre: Nobody in the world uses UTC, so that forces everyone to check. London and Boston 14:18:40 .. times do mean something. I'm not sure how the decision was made and haven't seen 14:18:42 .. a pointer to it. 14:18:52 Nigel: We aren't in a position to debate the AC decision here. 14:19:08 Pierre: Okay then I will happily raise it with the AC if someone can point me to the decision. 14:19:29 Glenn: I've been using Zulu time for all kinds of scheduling for my lifetime. The military 14:19:48 q+ 14:19:56 .. and radio hams use it so it is widely used. We decided this already so we should not 14:20:10 .. revisit it now. The group discussed it so we made a resolution, at least there was no 14:20:35 .. objection so far. Making it zulu means everyone is equally dissatisfied. 14:20:37 ack a 14:20:50 Andreas: I agree with Glenn on this, we had this discussion in two previous meetings 14:21:02 .. and I heard concerns but no objections to that. My position now is there is no decision, 14:21:13 .. nobody forces us, it's on the group to decide based on the recommendation. 14:21:25 .. This group is free to decide, we don't need to wait for an AC report. If someone 14:21:36 .. objects to it then it is not worth spending more time on it. I am happy either way. 14:21:48 Pierre: What will it change for people on the West Coast. Can we be specific because 14:21:56 .. some of us need to reserve slots in advance. 14:22:03 Glenn: For 2 days it will change. 14:22:41 q+ 14:22:48 Nigel: It's my action to go and check the DST date changes and propose when we should 14:22:51 .. change our schedules. 14:22:53 ack a 14:23:06 Andreas: In the past year, most of the times I missed the meetings where in the US there 14:23:09 .. was DST. 14:23:45 Pierre: For the past 5 years I have had my early mornings disrupted on Thursdays. 14:23:59 Andreas: Yes, unsociable times are fair to comment on also. There were also suggestions 14:24:02 .. of rotating times. 14:26:09 Nigel: We can separate the points of switching the basis to UTC and the DST switchover dates. 14:26:21 .. UTC is easier because most people know their local time relative to UTC but not other 14:26:28 .. places' local time relative to UTC. 14:26:41 .. In terms of DST I need to check the dates and impacts. The default would be to make 14:26:52 .. no change and stick with US DST dates, but it could be that it's actually better for some 14:27:11 .. people in the US if we go early/late for a couple of days a year, I need to check. 14:27:16 Pierre: I'll wait to see what you come up with. 14:28:03 Nigel: And a reminder about TPAC - it looks to me as though quite a few people have 14:28:16 .. not yet registered, so please do so - it will cost more if you do it after 31st July. 14:28:47 Nigel: In terms of the rest of this meeting, any specific topics to cover or AOB? 14:28:56 Glenn: I'd like to cover TTML2 issue #919. 14:29:23 Pierre: I'd like to talk a little bit about IMSC 1.1 test submission process. 14:29:58 .. I'm looking for group input on how to make it better. 14:30:13 .. I also want to schedule my review time for upcoming specifications so I'd like to know 14:30:17 .. the timelines. 14:31:04 Nigel: The CfC for TTML2 was opened on Tuesday so it is stable for review now. 14:31:19 Glenn: As Nigel pointed out the scope of the review is limited to the changes that 14:31:24 .. Nigel pointed out in the email. 14:31:27 Pierre: That makes sense. 14:31:31 .. I was planning to do a diff. 14:31:41 Glenn: I just finished updating the changes document too, which has a new section 14:31:45 .. on CR2 -> CR3 diffs. 14:31:49 Pierre: Thank you so much. 14:32:00 Glenn: That reminds me there's an old section in that changes document that allegedly 14:32:14 .. shows the differences between TTML1 2nd Ed and TTML2 CR1, but I think I need to 14:32:28 .. go back and update it from TTML1 3rd Ed to CR1 and make it relatively complete. I'll 14:32:33 .. probably open an issue on that. 14:32:38 Nigel: Good point! 14:33:16 Nigel: In terms of our general publication timeline, Pierre requested an overview of our 14:33:29 .. upcoming publication schedule last week, which I took the action for, and then realised 14:33:46 .. this morning would be better done by Thierry if he can, so I'm afraid I bumped that 14:34:00 .. action along, and I'm sure you haven't had chance to do that yet Thierry. 14:34:16 Thierry: Right, I'll work on that today and tomorrow and send the full dates out for 14:34:19 .. synchronising for Rec. 14:34:22 Nigel: Thank you. 14:34:56 https://ethercalc.org/no163r5i5dxv 14:35:46 Nigel: Thanks Thierry, I updated that this morning, and it is picked up on a batch job 14:35:59 .. once a day to generate a graph, which I don't have the link to. Thierry if you can find that 14:36:02 .. please send it too. 14:36:53 -> https://www.w3.org/PM/ Project Management boards and reports 14:37:10 -> https://w3c.github.io/spec-dashboard/?34314 TTWG dashboard 14:39:17 Topic: TTML1 Actions, Pull requests and Issues 14:39:43 Nigel: We are just over half way through our CfC to publish TTML1 3rd Ed CR2. 14:40:02 .. We have no TTML1 issues or pull requests marked for the agenda. 14:41:02 Pierre: I'm not aware of anything we need to discuss. The main action item is to create 14:41:08 .. those tests, and I think we're going to get there soon. 14:41:12 Nigel: Thank you. 14:41:33 .. Are you in the process of creating them, Pierre? 14:41:48 Pierre: Yes, and I'll be focussing more on this in the next couple of weeks so I'd like to 14:41:54 .. talk about process for IMSC. 14:42:08 Nigel: Okay let's talk about that in the IMSC agenda item then. 14:42:45 .. Just to be clear, are some of the TTML1 tests the same as the IMSC tests? 14:43:01 Pierre: I use imsc.js to generate the results, so yes. 14:43:20 .. It is the same tool and many of the tests we have already done to convince ourselves there 14:43:23 .. is a problem, so yes. 14:43:34 Topic: TTML2 Actions. Pull Requests and Issues 14:43:44 Nigel: Glenn has requested that we discuss issue 919; 14:44:43 action-443? 14:44:43 action-443 -- Glenn Adams to Prepare a document showing mapping arib ruby extension features to ttml2 for use as a liaison document to arib. -- due 2018-07-05 -- OPEN 14:44:43 https://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/tracker/actions/443 14:45:08 Nigel: I think you said you would do some kind of summary for us here Glenn? 14:45:18 Glenn: Right, I think I can get to that this week. 14:45:26 Nigel: Great, thank you. 14:45:40 Glenn: It will be in the form of a summary showing the features TTML2 provides related 14:45:47 .. to Japanese, and feel free to comment, etc. 14:45:49 Nigel: OK 14:46:11 Nigel: As mentioned earlier in the call, we have a CfC open for TTML2 CR3. 14:46:27 -> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tt/2018Jul/0173.html CfC for TTML2 CR3 request for transition 14:47:15 Topic: Use of HDR images. ttml2#695 14:47:20 github: https://github.com/w3c/ttml2/issues/695 14:47:40 github-bot, end topic 14:47:54 Topic: Add missing @extent attribute to isd:isd. ttml2#919 14:47:59 github: https://github.com/w3c/ttml2/issues/919 14:48:19 Glenn: This issue was to define the extent attribute for use on the isd syntax, which at 14:48:30 .. this point I consider to be new and that it will be refined over time. So I have avoided 14:48:41 .. going too far down the path of defining constraints on usage here. 14:49:03 .. The problem here was that in appendix H of TTML2 we compute all of the aspect ratios 14:49:14 .. , the resolution of the root container region and the document coordinate space for 14:49:28 .. the extent of the root container region. In H.2 the resolution computes a resolution in 14:49:42 .. logical pixels near the beginning of processing, at least before any time you need to 14:49:56 .. make use of width or height of root container region, and it stays that way during processing. 14:50:08 .. If the author does not specify a tts:extent on the root container element then the 14:50:21 .. implementation puts in a value that it wants to use, for example the SAR of a related 14:50:34 .. media object, etc. So it always comes up with a number in logical pixels to use there. 14:50:46 .. That means when other measurements are expressed in the ISD after going through 14:51:01 .. the process of using computed style values those might be expressed in pixels and 14:51:16 .. be encoded as pixels as opposed to rw or rh. They might have started out as rw or rh 14:51:28 .. but the implementation might have expressed them as pixels. We have made no 14:51:43 .. assumptions about the units in the ISD. It may be disadvantageous to do early 14:52:00 .. translation to pixels, for example em, c units etc might be in the ISD. In the absence 14:52:15 .. of an extent attribute that records what the implementation chose, then it becomes 14:52:25 .. difficult to resolve them, or it would be done by the receiving end. 14:52:45 .. Nigel you commented that surely a pixel extent is not required to compute rw or rh. 14:53:06 .. That depends on what you're using them for. Maybe, or maybe not. I wanted to comment 14:53:10 .. on your question there. 14:53:13 q+ 14:53:18 ack n 14:54:53 Nigel: Thanks for that, I don't disagree, and I think that a lot depends on the processing 14:55:09 .. model. Either way requiring extent on isd:isd would be wrong in general, even though 14:55:25 .. in some processing contexts it would be needed, so constrained by the implementation. 14:55:47 .. Indeed one approach might be to resolve dimensions into canonical units and generate 14:55:56 .. another ISD document based on an input ISD document, for example. 14:56:03 Glenn: I just want to make sure we're on the same page. 14:56:06 Nigel: I think we are. 14:56:25 Glenn: I wanted to mention that the condition attribute may also show up in the ISD 14:56:38 .. for example, consider a case when you can only resolve a condition at presentation time, 14:56:50 .. or it is used at layout time and some parameter changes from when the ISD was generated. 14:57:05 .. In those cases you might have condition show up in the ISD and whatever processes the 14:57:18 .. ISD might have to do further processing on it. 14:57:50 Nigel: That raises the question of if resolution of condition expressions can change the 14:57:56 .. set of ISDs that can be generated? 14:58:09 Glenn: Sure, they absolutely can. I think there's a note that evaluation of a condition 14:58:23 .. might change results, and in that case the condition needs to be propagated to the next 14:58:36 .. processing stage, or something to that effect. In other words, early resolution of 14:58:45 .. conditions depends on the application and the semantics of the condition expression. 14:58:59 .. For example the parameter based system allows environment defined parameters that 14:59:50 .. are undefined. 15:00:02 s/undefined/implementation-dependent 15:00:16 Nigel: Right, so if an implementation cannot resolve a parameter at ISD formation stage 15:00:26 .. then it needs to propagate that condition downstream until something can resolve it. 15:00:29 Glenn: Right. 15:01:09 Pierre: My conclusion is it is really not possible to evaluate rw and rh until there is a known 15:01:22 .. aspect ratio and I've not heard anyone disagreeing with that. 15:01:25 Nigel: Yes 15:01:37 Glenn: I would amend that to say a known resolution - the aspect ratios are an input to 15:02:20 .. the resolution and the resolution is what is needed to compute rw and rh units, as 15:02:30 .. computed in appendix H.2. 15:03:00 Glenn: I also put in a note near the end of our CfC editing, in one of the other issues, 15:03:11 .. that reminds users that logical pixels do not have a defined shape or size until they 15:03:23 .. are mapped to display pixels, and I've done a better job of defining inline terms that 15:03:35 .. define logical pixel and display pixel and referring to them elsewhere using links. Hopefully 15:03:39 .. that will help readers. 15:04:27 SUMMARY: Discussion about dimension resolution in ISDs and condition evaluation, no changes needed to the spec resulting from this discussion. 15:04:31 github-bot, end topic 15:05:35 Topic: TTML2 Implementation Report 15:05:47 Glenn: I'm back on test suites now, for the next couple of months. 15:06:01 Nigel: Thank you, we had a hiatus there for CR3 preparation (and holiday!) 15:06:14 Glenn: We have just under 2 months so we will have to work hard. 15:06:24 q+ 15:06:26 .. If anyone has TTML2 related test materials they would like to get in my queue for 15:06:44 .. processing please send them to me, alert me to them however. 15:06:46 ack a 15:06:59 Andreas: A comment regarding the tests. Glenn, last meeting you said you would generate 15:07:11 .. an overview that you thought could be finished by today. 15:07:23 Glenn: Yes, that was overtaken by events, and is on the top of my queue to generate a 15:07:35 .. spreadsheet and put it up for that purpose, so people can see gaps to help out with. 15:07:42 .. I'll be doing that today and the next few days. 15:07:44 Andreas: Thank you 15:08:15 Topic: IMSC 15:08:30 Nigel: First thing to note is that we published IMSC 1.1 CR2 today! Congratulations. 15:08:53 -> https://www.w3.org/TR/2018/CR-ttml-imsc1.1-20180726/ IMSC 1.1 CR2 15:09:37 Nigel: I think Pierre wants to discuss the process for streamlining tests. 15:09:49 Pierre: I'd like to be able to merge into the IMSC 1.1 branch more quickly, and then allow 15:10:02 .. us all to review together in one foul swoop. I think it would be more efficient and would 15:10:20 .. like the group to comment on that. 15:10:26 Nigel: How far through are we? 15:10:48 Pierre: We're nearly done. It really extends the process if I have to wait for pull requests 15:10:52 .. to be merged. 15:11:13 Glenn: Is merge control turned on on that repo? For example it is not turned on on the ttml2 tests repo. 15:11:24 .. I would go along with Pierre and say take off the merge control flag right now and later 15:11:34 .. on when things get more stable the group can decide to turn it on again. 15:12:06 Pierre: I would be happy with a 1 day review to make sure nothing horrible is happening. 15:12:22 Nigel: The 1 day review doesn't ensure that - it might take 5 minutes to review, but it's 15:12:32 .. about when you schedule those reviews, hence the 10 days. 15:12:58 Andreas: From my side it would be okay to turn off the merge contraint for the moment 15:13:10 .. for the test repo, not for the others, but for that one. 1 day review would be okay but 15:13:12 .. not realistic. 15:13:19 s/contraint/constraint 15:13:28 .. I'm sure if there's something to correct issues can still be found. 15:13:43 Pierre: Don't get me wrong, if someone wants to review PRs I think we can turn them back on. 15:14:54 Nigel: What I would propose is that we relax the merge control until Pierre you tell us that 15:15:11 .. the test repo is essentially done and then turn the merge control back on. 15:15:22 Pierre: That works, and by the way the work is happening on a branch so there's no 15:15:25 .. action to take right now. 15:21:09 Nigel: thank you. 15:21:29 Nigel: I think we have consensus to allow the tests to be merged quickly on the basis that 15:21:44 .. when the tests are essentially complete Pierre will tell us and we can a) begin a complete 15:21:54 .. review and b) if necessary switch on merge control. 15:22:29 Nigel: I guess at some point we'll have a formal pull request into the master branch that 15:22:32 .. we will formally review. 15:22:34 Pierre: Exactly. 15:23:07 group: [discussion of tt:image test, resulting in filing https://github.com/w3c/imsc-tests/issues/66] 15:23:35 Pierre: The only tests I'm really looking for input on are for rh and rw. There are a lot of 15:23:44 .. tests that need to be created so I'm looking for contributions to that. 15:24:00 Nigel: I sense this comes to me, so I will schedule some time to prepare those. 15:24:05 Pierre: And Cyril, right! 15:24:12 Nigel: Yes, good point, I will liaise with Cyril! 15:24:43 Topic: IMSC vNext Requirements 15:24:52 Nigel: This is stable, we should publish it, shouldn't we? 15:25:03 Pierre: Yes, there are two editor's notes that need to be tweaked in the light of CR2 so 15:25:15 .. I will go ahead and create a pull request for that, then we should publish it. 15:25:19 Nigel: That would a WG Note. 15:25:46 PROPOSAL: Publish the IMSC vNext Requirements as a WG Note 15:26:21 Nigel: I'm assuming we'll do a quick pass to check it and address those editorial notes 15:26:44 .. because we'll likely never come back to this document. 15:27:06 Pierre: The notes are related to the at risk features, so we could either 15:27:22 .. 1. Remove the notes, and then have requirements that are ultimately not matched by the final spec 15:27:33 .. because no implementations are presented, which means they probably go to vNext. 15:27:48 .. 2. Have notes in the requirements noting that they are at risk in CR2. The problem there 15:27:57 .. is that it is pointing to a specific version of the spec which is not ideal. 15:28:28 Nigel: The third approach is to classify them as "really want these but can live without them" 15:28:43 Pierre: It's not clear with shear vs lineShear because there's uncertainty, both in terms of 15:28:58 .. the best implementation and the demand. We could label them "at risk", right? 15:29:48 Nigel: I think for shear and lineShear we need to say "we want one of these but we're not 15:29:50 .. sure which one" 15:30:06 Pierre: That's what it says now, but not for rw/rh, and for that one we might want to mark 15:30:15 .. it as nice to have but not required, maybe. 15:30:27 Nigel: Okay, I will propose some wording in a pull request. 15:31:29 .. I've raised https://github.com/w3c/imsc-vnext-reqs/issues/37 15:33:19 RESOLUTION: After resolving the open issues marked as IMSC1.1, publish the IMSC 1.1 Requirements as a Working Group Note 15:33:28 Nigel: (checks that there are no objections) 15:34:06 Topic: CSS actions 15:34:22 Pierre: I have not yet raised the issue for support for lineShear 15:34:35 Nigel: There has also been discussion about background drawing: 15:35:21 -> https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/2811 Extruding border corners (negative border-radius) 15:35:29 Nigel: Raising for interest in the group. 15:35:57 Topic: TTML Profile Registry 15:36:08 Nigel: I added this agenda topic because it feels like we have some new profile to add, 15:36:12 .. or will soon. 15:36:49 .. For example we have TTML2, IMSC 1.1, and IMSC 1.0.1 15:37:00 Pierre: It occurs to me the way to address the chicken-and-egg is that MPEG will want 15:37:12 .. to be able to get inspired for the IMSC 1.1 profile designator, so I think it's better to do 15:37:16 .. it early rather than late. 15:39:03 NIgel: Right, it seems that there are changes for us and for others. 15:39:26 .. This would be a good opportunity to prompt Frans to see if there any EBU updates to make. 15:39:50 -> https://w3c.github.io/tt-profile-registry/ TTML Profile Registry ED 15:40:08 -> https://github.com/w3c/tt-profile-registry/issues TTML Profile Registry repo issues 15:40:42 Pierre: Also what about Mike's point about content profiles vs processor profiles 15:40:45 Glenn: Where's that? 15:40:49 Nigel: I can't recall 15:40:59 Pierre: Me neither, but it should be captured somewhere. 15:42:00 -> https://github.com/w3c/tt-profile-registry/issues/38 Consider how to handle Content Profiles vs Processor Profiles #38 15:42:11 Pierre: It's pretty simple, now we have them defined in TTML2 the Profile Registry should 15:42:13 .. mention that. 15:42:17 Nigel: Yes, I think so. 15:42:56 Nigel: Formally IANA needs processor profiles, so the question is for us whether we want 15:43:02 .. to add content profiles in addition. 15:43:16 .. We probably don't really have to, but it might be a good idea. 15:43:37 Glenn: I just created an issue to add TTML2 profiles since they are not there right now. 15:43:39 Nigel: Thank you! 15:44:13 .. I've added IMSC 1.1 profiles as an issue 15:45:48 .. And one to update the IMSC 1 refs to IMSC 1.0.1 15:45:59 Glenn: Does IMSC 1.1 update the profile designator URI? 15:46:02 Pierre: Yes 15:46:10 Glenn: OK. 15:47:09 Nigel: I encourage everyone to have a look at the Profile Registry and raise any change 15:47:15 .. requests as issues on the repo please. 15:47:29 Topic: Meeting close 15:47:54 Nigel: Thank you everyone! We meet again same time next week. [adjourns meeting] 15:47:59 rrsagent, make minutes 15:47:59 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2018/07/26-tt-minutes.html nigel 15:49:24 atai2 has left #tt 15:53:13 Log: https://www.w3.org/2018/07/26-tt-irc 15:54:01 s/.. the reason for mentioning/Nigel: the reason for mentioning 15:54:45 s|d/Nigel: In terms of agenda stuff, and look ahead, we have meetings on 2nd and 9th August||g 15:55:05 rrsagent, make minutes 15:55:05 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2018/07/26-tt-minutes.html nigel 15:56:52 s/In terms of agenda stuff/XIn terms of agenda stuff 15:57:08 s/Nigel: In terms of agenda stuff, and look ahead, we have meetings on 2nd and 9th August// 15:57:13 s/XIn/In 15:57:17 rrsagent, make minutes 15:57:17 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2018/07/26-tt-minutes.html nigel 16:02:00 s/Topic: Use of HDR images. ttml2#695/ 16:02:22 s|github: https://github.com/w3c/ttml2/issues/695| 16:02:35 s|github-bot, end topic||g 16:02:38 rrsagent, make minutes 16:02:38 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2018/07/26-tt-minutes.html nigel 16:03:03 s/we compute all of the aspect ratios/we compute all of the aspect ratios, 16:03:10 s/, the resolution/the resolution 16:03:20 rrsagent, make minutes 16:03:20 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2018/07/26-tt-minutes.html nigel 16:05:32 s/action to take right now./action to take right now. I just don't want anybody to be surprised by changing this without discussing it. 16:12:33 rrsagent, make minutes 16:12:33 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2018/07/26-tt-minutes.html nigel 16:12:52 scribeOptions: -final -noEmbedDiagnostics 16:14:17 rrsagent, make minutes 16:14:17 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2018/07/26-tt-minutes.html nigel 17:26:22 Zakim has left #tt