14:00:49 RRSAgent has joined #tt 14:00:49 logging to https://www.w3.org/2018/08/02-tt-irc 14:00:51 RRSAgent, make logs public 14:00:51 Zakim has joined #tt 14:00:53 Meeting: Timed Text Working Group Teleconference 14:00:53 Date: 02 August 2018 14:00:57 Log: https://www.w3.org/2018/08/02-tt-irc 14:01:01 tm has joined #tt 14:01:30 cyril has joined #tt 14:02:24 Present: Nigel 14:02:26 scribe: nigel 14:02:26 are we having a call now? 14:02:37 Chair: Nigel 14:02:54 WebEx tells me the call ended 14:04:07 Present+ Pierre, Thierry, Glenn, Cyril, Andreas 14:04:10 Regrets: None 14:04:13 glenn has joined #tt 14:04:20 Topic: This meeting 14:04:45 atai has joined #tt 14:04:48 Nigel: Hi everyone, today we have future meetings DST change, publication timings, 14:05:03 .. and the usual run through our documents' issues and pull requests as needed. 14:05:14 .. Any particular points to cover or other business? 14:05:30 group: [no aob] 14:05:37 Topic: DST date changes 14:05:52 Nigel: As promised I looked at the upcoming DST change to see what impact it could have 14:05:58 .. on us, and put 3 choices into the agenda. 14:06:03 tmichel__ has joined #tt 14:07:33 .. [iterates through choices in the agenda] 14:07:48 .. 1st November: Cancel/1500 UTC/1400 UTC 14:07:54 .. 8th November onwards: 1500 UTC 14:08:16 .. Any votes for any of those three options at this stage? 14:08:20 Glenn: Cancel on the 1st 14:08:25 Andreas: +1 14:09:00 Pierre: Just for the record, this UTC thing seems a lot of work. What I was not happy with 14:09:10 .. was the meeting being officially moved to UTC at a set time for the entire year, which 14:09:29 .. seemed a detriment to everyone. Merely changing the reference point from Boston to UTC 14:09:44 .. is fine with me. If we realise we need a meeting after TPAC, we can schedule it otherwise 14:09:48 .. for now we can just not have it. 14:10:32 Cyril: I'm fine with cancelling it. 14:11:51 Glenn: Presumably we will not meet on the 25th since we are meeting on the 22/23 at TPAC? 14:11:53 Nigel: Correct 14:12:03 Thierry: I'm fine with cancelling also. 14:12:12 Nigel: We have consensus to cancel the 1st November meeting, so let's do that. 14:12:28 Nigel: Any objections to moving to 1500 UTC from the 8th November onwards? 14:12:39 .. (that's the same time as normal for us) 14:12:45 group: [no objections] 14:12:54 Nigel: Okay, that's what we'll do. 14:13:13 Glenn: Starting now or on the 8th Nov? 14:13:53 Nigel: It'll stay at this time in UTC until end of October then I'll switch to 1500 UTC beginning on the 8th Nov. 14:13:58 Topic: Publication timings 14:14:12 Nigel: Thank you Thierry for preparing the detailed spreadsheet and circulating it. 14:14:29 .. The main point for us to note and consider action is that we will need a WG decision to 14:14:50 .. transition to PR, and this will be subject to the Decision Policy in our Charter, which Plh's 14:15:17 .. tool did not take into account. This could mean a publication date for TTML1 Rec of 8th Nov 14:15:34 .. and for TTML2 Rec of 13th Nov, but we would get IMSC 1.1 Rec out on 30th Oct. 14:15:48 .. The questions are: is that okay? and if not, what can we do about it? 14:16:10 Glenn: Obviously we do the CfC 2 weeks before the scheduled PR date of 25 Sep just like 14:16:20 .. we're doing with all the CRs, so why do anything different? 14:16:33 Nigel: The issue is that we would be beginning the decision review period before the end 14:16:55 .. of the CR deadline for comments. So comments could come in after the CfC begins. 14:17:05 .. Then resolving those could add some further delay/ 14:17:11 s|/|| 14:18:07 Glenn: The 6th Sep is the deadline for comments on CR3 as published. Where does 11 Sep come from? 14:18:12 Nigel: I didn't notice that. 14:18:33 Glenn: The schedule is based on publication of TTML2 CR3 on August 9. 14:18:44 Thierry: That's not possible. 14:19:09 .. If the end of the CfC is on the 7th then I have to send the transition request that day, then 14:19:22 .. it takes a week from 7th August until publication. After 7th August I need Director's approval, 14:19:34 .. send the announcement to the comm team, request publication from the webmaster, 14:19:37 .. that takes a week. 14:19:49 Glenn: In the previous CR we began the previous transition prior to the end of the CfC. 14:20:07 pal has joined #tt 14:20:12 Thierry: That was a real mess and the Director was unhappy and I got complaints. I don't 14:20:15 .. want to do that again. 14:20:21 Glenn: That's new information. 14:20:35 Thierry: Last time we kept changing the spec after requesting the transition. The spec was 14:20:45 .. a moving target and the Director could not understand what was going on. We don't 14:20:48 .. want to go through that again. 14:21:01 .. I didn't invent these dates, they came from Philippe's tool. 14:21:13 Glenn: I understand, and the August 9 date also came from that tool. 14:21:25 .. I recall Nigel asking you previously if we could do August 9 and you said it was fine, so 14:21:28 .. this is new. 14:21:36 Nigel: I'd have to check my notes, I'm not sure. 14:21:51 Thierry: I don't understand how we could have got to 9th unless we have a shorter CfC. 14:21:54 Glenn: Is that possible? 14:22:04 Nigel: I don't see how it would be, it's in the Charter. 14:22:24 Thierry: Philippe's tool can't take into account CfC periods because they vary across groups. 14:22:41 .. If we all agree that we can shorten the CfC I'm fine with that, if everyone from the WG is 14:22:47 .. okay, e.g. we could make it 3 days. 14:23:03 .. It started on July 24, so we're 9 days in. 14:23:26 Glenn: I'm prepared to suggest that we terminate the CfC early if the WG is acceptable with that. 14:23:37 .. We have some pull requests approved for merging, I would make it contingent on doing 14:23:39 .. those merges. 14:23:56 Nigel: I don't think I can accept that, midway through this CfC, though we could consider 14:24:11 .. it for a future one. For example we could make a resolution ahead of time to reduce the 14:24:29 .. CfC review period for PR transition on the basis that we will make no substantive changes, 14:24:43 .. because that decision would be reviewable by the entire group. If we change this current 14:25:08 .. CfC period now mid-flight, say in this meeting, then nobody absent from the meeting, 14:25:23 .. can comment, and we don't know if they are going to come up with something unexpected. 14:25:45 Thierry: Another solution is a bit hairy but what we could do is I could try sending a 14:25:57 .. transition request for tomorrow based on a stable document but that document would 14:26:12 .. be considered to be frozen. If we need to do more edits then I would cancel the transition 14:26:25 .. request and we would have to issue another one later. 14:26:42 Glenn: We had originally tried to go to Rec for all 3 specs on the same day, so if we go with 14:26:50 .. this timeline then we would have to go through that decision. 14:27:01 .. So far we have only made editorial changes since we began the CfC. One substantive 14:27:06 .. change was made 9 days ago. 14:27:34 Nigel: There are 2 substantive pull requests open at the moment. 14:27:40 Glenn: We don't have to merge those. 14:27:47 Pierre: How many weeks difference are we talking about? 14:28:10 Nigel: 2 weeks, to Tuesday 13th Nov. 14:28:29 Thierry: We don't have to publish them all on the same day. 14:28:42 Nigel: We agreed last week to try to publish them all on the same day. 14:28:59 Glenn: Right, so we might need to delay the others. 14:29:14 .. There is one substantive pull request, the other has a suggestion to push it out to 2nd Ed 14:29:17 .. which I agree with. 14:29:35 .. The other is #958 14:29:44 Nigel: Yes, we already agreed to do that. 14:30:25 Glenn: We could defer that until 2nd Ed. 14:30:58 Nigel: If Thierry's request is a stable version for tomorrow then we could do that? 14:31:02 Glenn: I could do that. 14:31:26 Pierre: The timeline is fine though. For all intents and purposes, a PR published on 4 Oct is 14:31:37 .. fine, for anyone who wants to reference a stable spec. 14:31:48 Glenn: We had already agreed to publish Recs for all three on the same date. 14:31:57 Pierre: I'm not saying that, the schedule that Thierry proposes looks fine to me. 14:32:06 Glenn: We agreed to publish on the same day. 14:32:11 Pierre: Yes but what does it matter? 14:32:18 Glenn: We can change our mind, that's fine with me. 14:33:08 Pierre: We didn't make a hard decision. 14:33:18 Nigel: We did decide this last week but now we have better information. I've not heard any 14:34:08 .. primary reason why we need the same date, the only thing we would lose is publicity impact. 14:34:31 Pierre: I've never seen a timeline like this before. 14:34:50 .. (the clearest) 14:34:58 Nigel: This is the best I've seen. 14:36:14 Thierry: We can publish the PR on 25th Sep 14:36:26 https://w3c.github.io/spec-releases/milestones/?cr=2018-08-11&noFPWD=true 14:36:37 Nigel: Hang on, I'm looking at the "with PR CfC" sheet which shows 4 Oct 14:38:11 Glenn: According to plh's tool ... 14:39:16 Nigel: [interrupts] This is going in too many directions. If we don't have any objections to 14:39:34 .. publishing PR on 4 Oct and Rec on 13 Nov then that's what we should do. 14:44:12 .. [group discussion, some confusion caused by looking at Plh's tool and Thierry's workbook] 14:44:26 Glenn: I have no objection to pushing Rec out to 13th Nov. 14:44:37 .. I'll have to change the dates in the current CR doc but that should be no problem. 14:46:01 Nigel: The end of the CfC is 7th August, we have time to process the current CfC comments. 14:47:56 Nigel: I just want to check if anyone else has any problems with the 13 Nov Rec date? 14:48:18 .. So far Glenn and Pierre have said it's okay, and it is with me too. 14:48:30 Pierre: Unless TTWG issues additional delay, you're confident those dates can be met, correct? 14:48:41 Thierry: This is a very tight schedule, the shortest we can get. 14:48:45 Pierre: Understood. 14:48:49 Cyril: It's realistic, right? 14:48:56 Thierry: It's do-able but very tight. 14:49:09 Pierre: I like the idea of now having a really concrete schedule and I think it's a lot better 14:49:20 .. than what we had before and only 2 weeks later than the self-imposed deadline. I'm happy. 14:49:27 Nigel: And no problems with MPEG? 14:49:29 Cyril: hmm 14:49:42 Pierre: To be transparent, I'm not sure Oct 30 helps with MPEG, their meeting will be over 14:49:53 .. by then. What I think really helps is having a PR ready before their meeting and being 14:49:58 .. able to provide a liaison regarding that. 14:50:15 .. I think that's really important to me. It would have been great to have had a Rec before but 14:50:21 .. we're not going to hit that. The meeting is mid-Oct. 14:50:24 Cyril: 8-12. 14:50:53 Thierry: The PR would be the 4th. 14:51:01 Nigel: Any deadline for incoming liaisons at MPEG? 14:51:10 Cyril: No, they can be very close to the meeting. 14:51:25 Pierre: Also SMPTE, their following meeting is in November. Being informed of a Rec date 14:51:35 .. well before the end of the year would really help organisations to plan. 14:51:46 .. My personal opinion is I would rather have a good realistic schedule than something 14:51:52 .. more aggressive with a high risk of not happening. 14:53:02 Nigel: I'm happy with this plan to, in Thierry's "with CfC" spreadsheet. 14:53:57 Nigel: If we need to co-time spec publications and make IMSC1.1 a bit later that's okay. 14:54:12 Cyril: I agree with that but I'm not sure that completing the test suite for IMSC1.1 by Sep 10 14:54:15 .. is feasible. 14:54:37 Glenn: W3M will hold up IMSC1.1 Rec until TTML2 Rec because it has a normative reference. 14:54:48 Nigel: I'm not sure about that, but maybe they should. 14:55:01 Glenn: Even if the AC has signed off, generally W3M has held up Rec publishing until the 14:55:21 .. normative rec has become solid, especially W3 specs. 14:55:26 Nigel: I think they regard PR as solid now. 14:55:28 Thierry: Yes 14:55:37 Cyril: I think the timeline for IMSC1.1 is going to change anyway because the implementation 14:55:44 .. report will be later. 14:56:40 Nigel: It's a good point, the upshot of delaying IMSC 1.1 to sync with TTML2 would be 14:56:48 .. 17 more days to do the test suite and implementation report. 14:57:00 Cyril: I think that would be fine. I think what matters to MPEG is PR not Rec. 14:57:18 Glenn: We were talking a moment ago about going out the door with IMSC 1.1 before 14:57:31 .. TTML2 goes to Rec. If it did that it would have to refer to the PR not the Rec. You can't 14:57:34 .. forward the reference. 14:57:48 Pierre: My assumption is it would simply be held. I don't know what date W3M would pick. 14:57:52 Glenn: That's my assumption. 14:58:04 Nigel: Does anyone have a problem if that happens? 14:58:17 Pierre: I don't have a problem, and also in the scenario that we have to hold back IMSC1.1 14:58:30 .. PR because not all tests are available, I'm happy with that as well. 14:58:58 Nigel: Good we effectively have agreement to target publication of TTML2 and IMSC 1.1 on Nov 13. 14:59:13 Thierry: Should I update the dates on the spreadsheet so they match? 14:59:46 Nigel: I don't think we need to, as a planning tool this is fine as is. The process is the same 14:59:56 .. for TTML2 and IMSC 1.1 so we can see the range of acceptable dates right now. 15:00:34 Thierry: I propose to publish this on the wiki, for ease of reference. 15:00:38 Nigel: Sounds good to me, yes please. 15:04:00 Topic: TTML1 15:04:22 Nigel: The CfC ended and I asked Thierry to request transition to CR2, and Thierry did that. 15:04:28 Thierry: Yes, that was done yesterday. 15:04:30 Nigel: Thank you! 15:04:58 Nigel: We don't have any issues to deal with here. 15:05:12 .. The next thing is the test suite to demonstrate the changed features since 2nd Ed. 15:05:24 .. As far as I know those tests don't exist at the moment? 15:05:38 Pierre: No, but hopefully after today I'll be very close to being done with the IMSC1.1 tests 15:05:43 .. so I'll be able to move on to that. 15:05:46 Nigel: Great, thank you. 15:06:13 .. We haven't any more on the agenda for TTML1. 15:06:17 Topic: TTML2 15:06:21 action-443? 15:06:21 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 15:06:21 https://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/tracker/actions/443 15:07:41 Glenn: Yes, push that on another week please. 15:07:42 Nigel: Ok 15:08:19 Nigel: We have some agenda issues. 15:08:36 Glenn: Before we get to specific issues maybe I can ask you to deal with the editorial pull 15:08:41 .. requests that are open right now? 15:08:49 Nigel: On the call now? 15:09:09 Glenn: Yes, first I need approval to merge early on the approved pull requests. 15:09:28 .. There were a couple that Nigel didn't take a look at yet (or anyone else) that we can do 15:09:35 .. quickly now, #959 and #963. 15:09:43 .. and #961. 15:10:40 Nigel: Those are the issues. 15:11:00 Glenn: Okay the pull requests are #960, #962 and #964. 15:11:22 Topic: Change resolved computed value to used value (#959). ttml2#960 15:11:36 github: https://github.com/w3c/ttml2/pull/960 15:11:49 Glenn: This came from a comment from Pierre that we should probably just go with the 15:12:02 .. terminology in CSS of used value, in place of "resolved computed value" and this introduces 15:12:15 .. a definition to accomplish this. It is an editorial change. 15:12:33 Pierre: I think you had convinced me no change was necessary so this came as a surprise! 15:12:54 Glenn: I agree, it helps avoid confusion to go with something CSS understands when we talk 15:13:09 .. to other groups. I note that XSL-FO did not use "used value" because the earlier version 15:13:22 .. of CSS 2 did not have that term in. Since then the CSS folks added "used value". 15:13:42 Pierre: Stupid question, if these are editorial, we can do them between CR and PR, right? 15:13:49 .. Shouldn't we focus on the substantive issues? 15:13:57 Glenn: I'd like to knock them off now if we can agree to it. 15:14:07 Pierre: Just prioritising the time. 15:16:24 Nigel: I'd like to propose that we continue to review the editorial pull requests offline 15:16:29 .. and merge them early. 15:16:49 Glenn: Okay, we can do that, as long as I have approval to merge the PRs between now 15:17:53 .. and the end of the CfC. 15:18:05 github-bot, end topic 15:18:13 Topic: TTML2 pull requests 15:18:33 Nigel: We should prioritise: 15:18:43 .. * Pull Requests that are substantive 15:18:50 .. * Pull requests relating to the review scope 15:18:58 .. * Pull requests not relating to the review scope. 15:19:06 Glenn: Can I merge the approved pull requests early? 15:19:24 Nigel: Yes, noting that based on that prioritisation some might get deferred if they don't 15:19:26 .. get an approval. 15:19:33 Glenn: Yes. I assume that. 15:19:54 Nigel: Just checking in, is everyone happy with that? Any objections to merging approved 15:19:59 .. pull requests early in the CfC period? 15:20:02 Cyril: No 15:20:14 Glenn: So far we have not merged any substantive pull requests. 15:20:42 Nigel: We won't be issuing the transition request until we have stability at the end of the CfC period. 15:21:50 Nigel: No objections so please go ahead and merge approved pull requests early. 15:23:13 Glenn: On #958 if we merge that then there will be changes during the CfC. 15:23:26 Thierry: The Director wants a stabilised document after transition request. 15:23:43 Nigel: This is a non-issue. 15:24:35 Glenn: I thought Thierry said the Director had a problem with changes during CfC, if it's 15:24:43 .. about instability during the transition request, then that's okay, got it. 15:24:54 Topic: Improve non-negative-real interoperability (#943). ttml2#944 15:25:04 github: https://github.com/w3c/ttml2/pull/944 15:25:15 Glenn: I have no problem deferring this to 2nd Ed, and note that if we do that then we 15:25:22 .. need to approve #956 in the meantime. 15:26:28 Nigel: This is about making the value "0." that is illegal in TTML1 legal by adopting xs:decimal. 15:26:37 .. I think we should do nothing and nobody will care. 15:27:33 Glenn: If we don't do it then we have to do #956. 15:27:36 Nigel: Any other views on this? 15:27:42 [group]: silence 15:27:53 Glenn: The reason #956 is important is that if we use xs:decimal in our schema then all 15:28:06 .. the tools that take the schema will make it impossible to tell if 0. was used because the 15:28:18 .. resulting value will be a double floating point number whose original lexical value will 15:28:45 .. be lost. Changing it to a string will pass that through to implementations. 15:29:01 Nigel: And the XSD is not normative and it is not a requirement for implementers to use it. 15:29:03 Glenn: Sure. 15:29:39 Nigel: There are no comments on this. 15:29:45 Glenn: I will move this issue to TTML.next. 15:29:47 Nigel: OK 15:30:01 SUMMARY: Close pull request and mark as TTML.next. 15:30:06 github-bot, end topic 15:30:33 Topic: Remove application of tts:rubyPosition to ruby annotation text. ttml2#945 15:30:38 github: https://github.com/w3c/ttml2/issues/945 15:31:16 Pierre: This is simply achieving better alignment with CSS. CSS does not allow 15:31:30 .. ruby-position on text, only on text-container. My suggestion is to follow the same route. 15:32:05 Nigel: I see Glenn's comment from 2 days ago that Pierre's suggestion is probably workable. 15:32:30 Glenn: I have a problem with this. It will require a substantive change to back out the 15:32:43 .. language that defines in what way ruby position is applied to text content. I have to 15:32:56 .. dispute what was just said by Pierre. It does not disallow specifying it on ruby text, it 15:33:08 .. just doesn't say that it applies to it. If we don't allow the currently specified semantics 15:33:20 .. to apply in the way that it is defined that means we have to substitute some other 15:33:31 .. normative text that says the ruby position that would be inherited from the container 15:33:45 .. (tts:ruby="container") also applies to the implied ruby text container that is constructed 15:33:58 .. during the presentation processing. It's a substantive change. It is not necessary to make 15:34:08 .. any change here because the mapping to HTML5 and CSS is trivial to accomodate this. 15:34:15 Pierre: It is not. 15:34:20 s/omo/ommo 15:34:29 Glenn: All you have to do is create an explicit ruby text container. 15:34:36 Pierre: If one already exists that doesn't work. 15:34:47 Glenn: If one already exists then it is an error to put another one on. 15:35:10 Pierre: Sure but that means you cannot always add a ruby position. I'm trying to avoid 15:35:15 .. exceptions and make things more robust. 15:35:29 .. A ruby text container is already created anonymously if not present, so this does not 15:35:31 .. change anything. 15:35:43 Glenn: What that means is we have to redefine the semantics to say that the inheritance 15:35:56 .. explicitly applies to the ruby text container. I do not agree with this change at this point. 15:36:01 .. I'm willing to look again in 2nd Ed. 15:36:21 Pierre: I would accept putting this feature as at risk. Alignment with CSS is important. 15:36:24 Glenn: I object. 15:36:35 .. To putting it at risk - it is already implemented in two implementations. 15:37:03 Pierre: Which we've seen no tests for. I'd rather not get there Glenn. What I'd rather say is 15:37:13 .. that we should be aligned with CSS. Half of this section is dedicated to stating how 15:37:18 .. it is aligned with HTML and CSS. 15:37:24 q+ 15:37:31 Glenn: We have never made syntactic alignment a requirement, always functional alignment. 15:37:43 Pierre: It's confusing for people. 15:37:44 ack at 15:37:57 Andreas: I'm not really into this issue in itself and have not reviewed this ruby application 15:38:10 .. but I would heavily support Pierre's approach to align with CSS as much as possible. 15:38:23 .. From the last discussion we had at TPAC with the CSS WG we really would like to bring 15:38:36 .. TTML closer to CSS functional of course but also syntactically if possible would be better. 15:38:46 .. There are a lot of reasons why we are not aligned with CSS but that is all history now. 15:38:59 .. The direction is that we are getting closer to CSS and after TTML2 with TTML3 I do not 15:39:11 .. know how it will go on but possibly there could be a major change. So in general I support 15:39:14 .. what Pierre said. 15:39:34 Glenn: The last published CR of CSS ruby level 1 was in 2014. The current text that 15:39:46 .. Pierre is using is an ED that has no status. There is no certainty about when we are going 15:40:02 .. to see a CSS Ruby layout level 1 Rec. I don't think we can talk about alignment with CSS 15:40:12 .. in any real way here. Also Pierre has pointed out a number of times that the only 15:40:28 .. implementation is in Firefox anyway so one wonders if, even if they solidified the spec now 15:40:45 .. could they achieve closure without any other implementations. The risk is high and there 15:40:57 q+ 15:40:57 .. are a number of unresolved issues in CSS. 15:41:13 Pierre: We should take the conservative approach. 15:41:27 q+ 15:41:32 Glenn: IRT (Stefan) reviewed the current language and did not point out any misalignment. 15:41:54 Pierre: This came from implementation work. 15:41:56 ack at 15:42:13 Andreas: The message from CSS was to come if there is a requirement not in CSS. If there 15:42:23 .. is a possibility to step back and say we have a requirement not in CSS right now then 15:42:33 .. we should take it there first and see how it gets on. 15:42:36 Glenn: Good suggestion. 15:42:50 Cyril: If you want TTML2 published in 2025 you should do that. We should favour stability 15:43:07 .. at this point, in CR3. Alignment with CSS is fine but should not jeopardise TTML2 publication. 15:43:20 .. In this case it does not look like a bug in the spec, but a problem of alignment to an ED 15:43:23 .. that is not stable. 15:43:32 Pierre: You're trading risk of implementation for risk of stability. 15:43:42 ack cyril 15:44:33 Cyril: It is exactly how the process works, to trade spec risk for implementation risk. Why 15:44:38 .. don't we follow the process? 15:44:49 Pierre: At this point imsc.js does not implement it correctly because of the spec. 15:45:07 Cyril: It is not impossible to fix though. It is too late to fix now. We have to publish, we have to get it done. 15:45:21 Pierre: You don't want to remove one word on the spec? 15:45:30 Cyril: yes, now is too late. When it is it going to end? 15:46:20 Glenn: I don't care what Pierre says about implementations. There are at least two implementations 15:46:34 q+ 15:46:37 .. with tests already even if they are not visible. This change requires at least two implementations 15:46:55 .. to be changed, so I don't go with that. This issue is out of scope of the CfC review. 15:47:11 .. Substantive changes out of scope here cannot pass muster. 15:47:14 ack p 15:47:28 Pierre: If we take this really seriously, no more changes, then we should make no more 15:47:42 .. changes and move on. The time it will take to review all the other changes, which are 15:48:01 .. editorial only in name because they affect substantive statements, is outweighed by 15:48:22 .. the time it takes to fix this. We make a change if it is worth it. 15:48:32 Glenn: We do not have consensus on whether it is worth it. 15:48:35 Nigel: That is a key point. 15:49:39 .. Pierre, is this something that you can live with, to make no change, given that a path 15:49:52 .. has been laid out for how to implement in HTML and CSS, even if it is not the optimum for you? 15:50:00 Pierre: I will have to check with my sponsors on that. 15:50:03 Nigel: Okay. 15:50:21 SUMMARY: No consensus for a change now. 15:50:29 github-bot, end topic 15:50:57 Topic: The set element is included in [resolve computed styles]. ttml2#950 15:51:03 github: https://github.com/w3c/ttml2/issues/950 15:53:53 Nigel; [attempts to summarise issue] This is in the review scope for the CfC. 15:54:47 Glenn: [scribe misses a bit] The CSS of set and animate are defined as the SSS without 15:55:03 .. inheritance or fallback, as documented more thoroughly. It is very dense logic to follow. 15:55:16 .. The upshot is there is no need to exclude set or animate from the filter set to which 15:55:30 .. CSS computation applies. If we did not have it then set and animate would have no 15:55:42 .. CSS applied on them at all but there are other parts of the spec that want to have that. 15:55:56 .. The current wording avoids any substantive issue, the CSS is equal to the SSS basically. 15:56:26 Nigel: Pierre, does that logic resolve it for you? 15:56:31 Pierre: I have not studied it further. 15:56:49 Glenn: If we pull out set from that list then we would also pull out animate. At least three 15:56:59 .. rules with special semantics for set and animate would have to be backed out as well. 15:57:15 .. It would be very tricky making those changes now for limited utility. I am willing to 15:57:29 .. leave this issue open and give further consideration. I don't think we can address it in 15:57:38 .. TTML2 1st Edition in any case. I don't see a bug here. 15:58:55 Nigel: I think at this stage there is no change proposed and it will be difficult to make one. 15:59:11 .. In order to make the transition request our realistic options are to defer it or close it. 15:59:22 Glenn: I would prefer to defer it to TTML.next. 15:59:30 Pierre: I think the group needs to decide whether to close it or not. 15:59:38 .. I don't know if I would object to closing it. 16:00:14 Nigel: We need a default action to take here. If it is not closed and no change is agreed 16:00:26 .. by the end of the CfC then I will defer it, so we can move on with the transition request. 16:00:47 SUMMARY: Issue review to continue; to defer if not resolved by the end of the CR3 CfC. 16:01:33 github-bot, end topic 16:01:58 Topic: Meeting Close 16:02:28 Nigel: We've run out of time for our remaining agenda topics. We meet again same time next week. 16:02:33 Pierre: I did my CSS action. 16:02:41 Nigel: Please add a comment to the action and then we can close it. 16:02:44 Pierre: I will do that. 16:02:50 .. There's nothing else today for IMSC. 16:03:04 Nigel: Thank you everyone! See you next week [adjourns meeting] 16:03:05 atai has left #tt 16:03:09 rrsagent, make minutes 16:03:09 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2018/08/02-tt-minutes.html nigel 16:12:31 s/WebEx tells me the call ended/ 16:12:37 s/are we having a call now?/ 16:16:23 s/to note and consider action is/to note and consider action on is 16:38:33 s/(the clearest)/(the clearest so far) 16:38:40 s/We should prioritise/We should prioritise (in descending order) 16:39:32 s/[group]: silence/group: silence 16:39:44 s/github-bot, end topic//g 16:41:36 s/It is too late to fix now/It is too late to fix [in the spec] now 16:42:38 rrsagent, make minutes 16:42:38 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2018/08/02-tt-minutes.html nigel 16:54:53 s/Nigel; [attempts/Nigel: [attempts 16:55:22 rrsagent, make minutes 16:55:22 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2018/08/02-tt-minutes.html nigel 16:57:50 scribeOptions: -final -noEmbedDiagnostics 16:57:51 ScribeOp 16:57:55 s/ScribeOp/ 16:57:57 rrsagent, make minutes 16:57:57 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2018/08/02-tt-minutes.html nigel 18:01:02 Zakim has left #tt 18:43:17 dbaron has joined #tt 18:45:39 github-bot, end topic 18:45:47 dbaron has left #tt 18:57:18 github-bot has joined #tt