14:01:01 RRSAgent has joined #tt 14:01:01 logging to https://www.w3.org/2018/08/09-tt-irc 14:01:03 RRSAgent, make logs public 14:01:03 Zakim has joined #tt 14:01:05 Meeting: Timed Text Working Group Teleconference 14:01:05 Date: 09 August 2018 14:01:31 Log: https://www.w3.org/2018/08/09-tt-irc 14:02:21 Present: Glenn, Pierre, Thierry, Nigel 14:02:23 Chair: Nigel 14:02:25 scribe: nigel 14:02:27 cyril has joined #tt 14:02:30 Regrets: none 14:02:39 Topic: This meeting 14:03:40 Present+ Cyril 14:03:48 Nigel: Hi everyone! 14:04:18 .. Today is our last meeting for a couple of weeks. Our next after today is on 30th August. 14:05:03 .. For today, we need to start focusing on tests since there's no spec work to do urgently, 14:05:06 .. just editorial things. 14:05:45 .. I think we will cover TTML1, TTML2, IMSC 1.1, CSS stuff. I don't think we have anything 14:05:52 .. to cover with profile registry yet. 14:06:07 .. Any particular items to cover, or any other business? 14:06:22 Pierre: I think it's already on the agenda, but TTML1 3rd Ed tests, and also two particular 14:06:29 .. TTML2 tests for luminanceGain and disparity. 14:06:32 Nigel: OK, thanks. 14:06:46 group: [no other points to raise] 14:07:09 Topic: TTML1 14:07:23 Nigel: Pierre, you wanted to cover TTML1 3rd Ed Tests, but before that... 14:07:49 Thierry: TTML1 3rd Ed CR2 is published, and the call for exclusion has been sent. 14:07:54 Nigel: Thank you! 14:08:00 Thierry: We are on track and schedule. 14:08:17 Present+ Andreas 14:08:51 Nigel: Okay, Pierre, tests? 14:09:10 Topic: TTML1 3ED tests ttml1#361 14:09:15 github: https://github.com/w3c/ttml1/pull/361/files 14:09:26 Pierre: I just pushed it a couple of hours ago so I don't expect anyone to have had a 14:09:38 .. thorough look. I've gone through all the substantive tests since 2ed and created tests 14:09:51 .. for everything that can be tested and highlighted what I think cannot be tested. 14:10:03 .. The tests are inspired by the IMSC tests so they will seem familiar. 14:10:04 atai has joined #tt 14:10:12 .. I'd like a review especially on the things marked as non-testable. 14:10:24 .. From a practical perspective, if Glenn could try to render or check them using TTPE and 14:10:36 .. TTX that would be great. Last time we spoke the plan was for TTPE and IMSC.js to be the 14:10:44 .. two implementations for the TTML1 3ed tests. 14:11:03 Cyril: How many of these tests are relevant for IMSC 1.1? 14:11:23 Pierre: First, there may be zero IMSC 1.1 tests because everything in IMSC 1.1 is already 14:11:39 .. in TTML2 or IMSC 1.0.1, so there will be no additional tests needed to meet the IMSC 1.1 14:11:41 .. exit criteria. 14:12:00 Cyril: I understand that, but how many of the tests for TTML1 3ed are relevant for IMSC 1.1 14:12:04 .. features? 14:12:20 Pierre: All but one are covered by IMSC 1.1. But I think the purpose of those tests if I recall 14:12:32 .. correctly was specifically to convince the Director that the substantive changes were in 14:12:35 .. fact implemented. 14:12:38 Nigel: That's right. 14:12:52 Pierre: I created those tests specifically to demonstrate that. All but one are already 14:13:00 .. exercised by IMSC1 tests and TTML1 tests in fact. 14:13:05 Cyril: Which is the exception? 14:13:19 Pierre: Anamorphic fonts. There's one test that is triggered by anamorphic fonts. 14:13:24 Cyril: 2 value relative font size? 14:13:37 Pierre: Exactly. That one is not part of IMSC1 or 1.1 and I'm not even sure it was part of 14:13:41 .. TTML1 test suite either. 14:13:44 Cyril: Ok, thank you. 14:14:02 Glenn: Q: what did we change in the spec that that particular test is used to demonstrate? 14:14:17 Pierre: If you recall, we added a bunch of text that discussed inheritance. 14:14:36 .. Example, p fontSize = "1c", then child span fontSize="1em". The font size is calculated 14:14:41 .. to be 1c, that's boring. 14:15:06 .. There are two examples in the TTML1 text that describe this. 14:15:22 -> https://www.w3.org/TR/ttml1/#style-attribute-fontSize fontSize in TTML1 14:15:46 Nigel: The examples are in Notes? 14:15:49 Pierre: Yes 14:16:06 .. The 3rd and 4th note in that section. 14:17:02 .. "1em 1em" can result in an anamorphic font size. 14:17:15 .. The relative font size is relative to the computed parent font size which can be anamorphic. 14:17:56 Glenn: What normative text changed that drove adding that test? 14:18:04 Pierre: The entire text of that section was heavily changed. 14:18:16 Glenn: I'm just wondering if we went too far in creating that test or if the original test 14:18:21 .. suite was under-represented. 14:18:44 Pierre: The 5th paragraph, "When a single relative value is specified, ..." 14:19:00 .. If that is in TTML1 2nd Ed then I agree there's no need for tests, but I'm thinking it was not. 14:19:08 Glenn: I'll check. 14:19:18 Pierre: The two that can't be tested or don't need to be tested are: 14:19:33 .. 1. 'should' regarding the tts:lineHeight. 14:19:55 .. 2. application defaults for frame rate and sub-frame rate. 14:20:00 .. I don't think that's testable. 14:20:20 Nigel: Presumably we could include the application settings to apply for testing frame rate 14:20:35 .. and sub-frame rate, for example in text outside the TTML document instance, then the 14:20:45 .. same instance would have a different evaluation in some way? 14:21:01 Pierre: Sure, but that in itself, the decision to apply an application default, has no requirement 14:21:06 .. so I don't think it's testable. 14:21:31 Nigel: In other words we have merely made explicit the already existing option for an 14:21:37 .. implementation to do its own thing? 14:21:40 Pierre: Yes, that's right. 14:21:56 Nigel: That seems like a reasonable argument to me. What about lineHeight. 14:22:10 .. Why not be able to test that? 14:22:14 Pierre: It's a should. 14:22:19 Nigel: But the semantic is still testable. 14:22:54 Pierre: Yes but applications can be conformant without doing it. 14:23:07 Nigel: Yes but we can still test the semantic. 14:23:13 Pierre: The syntax is unchanged, and it's a should. 14:23:27 Nigel: Yes but the test needs to demonstrate implementability, so there needs I think to be 14:23:40 .. some test that shows the should behaviour can be implemented. 14:24:27 Glenn: If normal already appears in any of the TTML1 tests then we don't need a new test 14:24:28 .. for this. 14:24:32 Nigel: Why not? 14:24:47 Glenn: If normal is already there then that test for how normal is used, with no normative 14:24:55 .. or exemplar images... 14:25:14 Pierre: I don't understand - say tts:lineHeight="normal" and an implementation returns to 14:25:27 .. you something with a line height that is double the font size, what do you conclude? 14:25:44 Nigel: Depending on the algorithm in the spec and the font resources, on balance most 14:25:53 .. likely that implementation is not demonstrating that the spec can be implemented. 14:26:41 tmichel has joined #tt 14:26:48 Pierre: It's only a recommendation. 14:27:07 Nigel: If the spec said "should go back in time by 10 minutes" then the Director would want 14:27:31 .. a test to show that, but of course no time machine exists, so I think that text would 14:27:33 .. lead to trouble. 14:27:44 Pierre: Good news, there already is a test for lineHeight="normal". 14:27:48 Glenn: As I said. 14:28:20 Pierre: I wanted to agree the scope first. 14:28:47 Glenn: I wonder if it would be consistent if we add an exemplar to a small subset of TTML1 14:28:48 .. tests. 14:28:53 Nigel: I don't think we need to worry about that. 14:29:07 Pierre: My proposal was just to check in the test files without exemplars, but file the outputs 14:29:16 .. generated from our implementations under the implementation report. 14:29:53 Glenn: Ok. When is the last date for this? 14:30:00 Nigel: Thanks to Thierry, 14:30:05 -> https://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/specs-timeline.html Timeline 14:30:17 Nigel: Shows that implementation report needs to be finalised by 24th September. 14:30:37 Pierre: Can we give ourselves until August 30th to review those tests and make changes, 14:30:53 .. then freeze them then create the implementation report, and then start submitting results. 14:30:58 .. Just a suggestion. 14:31:21 Glenn: TTPE implements normal as described as well as anamorphic fonts so I think we're 14:31:32 .. good there but I'd need to run the tests to verify that. I don't think there's any problem 14:31:42 .. in using TTPE as one of the implementations to verify those. 14:31:57 Nigel: I like Pierre's suggested plan, any issues with that? 14:32:02 group: [silence] 14:32:21 Nigel: Okay, then agenda+ for 30th August to confirm the TTML1 3ed test suite so we can 14:32:28 .. begin to create the implementation report. 14:34:04 +q 14:34:53 Nigel: [discusses tests, with comments on the pull request] 14:34:54 ack g 14:35:11 glenn: I just double checked the anamorphic font text, and it turns out that it is basically 14:35:29 .. present in 2nd Ed in the 4th note in ยง8.2.9, in the last sentence. So this is basically a 14:35:39 .. paragraph of text in a note already, now made normative whereas it was more an 14:35:47 .. explanation of an implication in 2nd Ed. 14:35:53 Pierre: So do we need the tests still? 14:36:06 Glenn: In my opinion the semantic was already there and we're not demonstrating a new 14:36:08 .. semantic. 14:36:12 Pierre: I'm not excited by it. 14:36:28 Glenn: I'd be willing to have no test and point to the 2nd Ed text for that. 14:36:58 github: https://github.com/w3c/ttml1/pull/361 14:37:44 Nigel: I think the Director was asking for tests to demonstrate the substantive changes, 14:37:57 .. and this counts as one because normative text clarifies what may have been ambiguous 14:38:00 .. before. 14:40:47 .. We need to look more carefully at this to see if an existing TTML1 test for two value fontSize 14:40:54 .. can be reused or already demonstrates this. 14:41:03 Glenn: I added a comment under this pull request. 14:42:06 Nigel: This needs further investigation - I see that the diff tool isn't helping us. 14:44:05 Nigel: in the direction test, shouldn't the direction on the first p be direction="ltr"? 14:44:25 Pierre: That is a subtle point that 3ed clarifies - without bidiOverride the "natural" direction 14:44:31 .. of the script is not overridden. 14:44:44 Glenn: Where that comes into effect is resolving the directionality of weakly directional 14:44:56 .. or neutral directional characters at the boundaries of the paragraph, like the period that 14:45:11 .. ends the paragraph is neutral directionality. If the paragraph embedding level is ltr then 14:45:24 .. a period at the end of a hebrew or arabic sentence takes on the direction of the previous 14:45:36 .. character, but there are scenarios where it doesn't work. On this point, previously in 14:45:48 .. 2ed and prior we didn't call out this semantic but probably many implementations 14:46:07 .. implemented it as we have now clarified. Since we did not say either way, some 14:46:19 .. implementations may have read between the lines and applied it to p which would not 14:46:31 .. have been non-conformant since we had no test suite examplars to follow. It could have 14:46:36 .. fallen through the cracks. 14:46:56 FYI you may use the following diff tool 14:46:58 http://www.aptest.com/standards/htmldiff/htmldiff.pl?oldfile=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2FTR%2F2013%2FREC-ttml1-20130924%2F&newfile=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2FTR%2F2018%2FCR-ttml1-20180424%2F 14:47:13 q+ 14:47:19 Glenn: The XSL spec says to apply it this. 14:47:20 ack c 14:47:36 Cyril: 2 comments about the test suite. 14:47:42 .. Some tests have a copyright. 14:47:52 Pierre: Yes, I thought I'd removed them and didn't. Please add a comment. 14:48:03 Cyril: Secondly, in the pull request you've done the work to link the issues to the tests, 14:48:19 .. but there's no link backwards. I wonder if we should put metadata in the tests to point 14:48:28 .. to the issues or the spec sections that it is trying to test. 14:48:33 Pierre: Yes that'd be awesome. 14:48:50 Nigel: Is that information available? 14:49:01 Pierre: Yes it's in the pull request. Most of the tests have a metadata section so it's a matter 14:49:13 .. of copying and pasting the pull request info into the metadata header. If someone wants 14:49:27 .. to spend 45 minutes doing it that'd be awesome. 14:49:38 Cyril: Going a bit further, referencing the spec itself? 14:49:48 .. I suppose the issue goes to the pull request goes to the section of the text. 14:49:58 Pierre: Exactly. Copying the bullet point is all we need to do. 14:50:20 Nigel: Any other points on this test suite? 14:50:39 SUMMARY: Test suite to be finalised August 30th, review to continue until then. 14:51:02 Glenn: I would note that August 30th is prior to when it is actually needed so we have 14:51:07 .. some room to slip that if necessary. 14:51:18 Nigel: Yes but there has to be time for the implementations to respond to the tests. 14:51:22 Glenn: Yes 14:51:36 Pierre: The goal is to freeze the tests so implementers can work on them. 14:52:31 Glenn: It's a good goal, just not an absolute hard deadline. 14:53:25 Nigel: It's a target, and as Cyril mentioned there is other work to do at the same time. 14:53:38 .. If we can freeze the tests on 30th then that gives 3 weeks for implementations, which 14:53:42 .. seems reasonable. 14:53:51 Pierre: If you can run the validator that would be good, Glenn. 14:54:01 Glenn: Sure I can do that, and check what TTPE does as well. 14:54:06 github-bot, end topic 14:54:30 Topic: TTML2 14:54:35 action-443? 14:54:35 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 2018-08-09 -- OPEN 14:54:35 https://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/tracker/actions/443 14:55:14 Glenn: Put that off please. 14:55:23 Nigel: Okay, you asked for this and asked me to put it off until today. 14:56:08 Nigel: We made the transition request as per the plan, and if all goes well we should have 14:56:29 .. TTML2 CR3 published by 14th August, with a deadline for comments of 11th September. 14:56:38 .. We need to leave reasonable time for any response. 14:57:06 Thierry: I don't expect a Director meeting because this is straightforward. I will ping them 14:57:17 .. (Philippe and Ralph) but it should be approved tomorrow. 14:57:30 Glenn: The documentation is already in the right place, so this is just a formality? 14:57:46 Thierry: Yes, I'm waiting for the normal process to go through. 14:58:25 Topic: TTML2 implementation report 14:58:43 Nigel: Raising this as it's the next thing to do, and I see that Glenn has been submitting tests. 14:58:56 Glenn: I've now blessed 249 unique tests that are all in the validation category. 14:59:10 .. They are either validity or invalidity tests, documented in the spreadsheet shared 14:59:12 .. previously. 14:59:23 https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1nunAY0F0bxL0nZDng2VxmWHv7i2RyAIvKQwDiiVzooc/edit#gid=0 14:59:35 Glenn: If you don't have share access to that then request it. 14:59:51 .. I'm almost finished, I expect to have 100% coverage of the features for validation tests 15:00:03 .. by Monday, hopefully, if not earlier. That's going very well. 15:00:14 .. Then I will begin populating presentation tests, starting from about 100+ tests that are 15:00:25 .. in TTPE already and use those to populate presentation tests in this spreadsheet, and 15:00:34 .. also I'll upload to the ttml2-tests repository. 15:00:48 .. As I'm going through these I'm also updating either TTV or TTPE implementations to 15:01:03 .. verify that they work and produce desirable results. There will be some points where 15:01:17 .. I have presentation tests with no TTPE rendering code so I will be relying on 3rd parties 15:01:32 .. to demonstrate those. For example disparity and luminanceGain. 15:01:48 pal has joined #tt 15:01:48 .. They are included in IMSC 1.1 that will be depending on others to satisfy. 15:01:51 q+ 15:02:07 .. I would like to hear if anyone has implemented or plans to implement those. 15:02:08 ack pal 15:02:23 Pierre: I just submitted a couple of hours ago two proposed tests, one for disparity and 15:02:33 .. one for luminanceGain, on the imsc-tests repo. 15:02:35 https://github.com/w3c/imsc-tests/pull/69 15:02:56 Pierre: That's the pull request. Glenn do you want to look at those, and tell me if those 15:03:05 .. would fit in TTML2 presentation test suite, and if so we can put them in there? 15:03:23 Glenn: My thinking is that I will also draw from other tests as well as the TTPE ones. I took 15:03:34 .. a quick look at those this morning and they look fine on first glance. I will check they 15:03:46 .. validate, but the presentation part modulo Nigel's comments seem okay. Do we have 15:03:52 .. anyone signed up for implementing them? 15:03:54 q+ 15:04:04 Pierre: I will be looking into this, but before that I wanted to look at concrete tests and 15:04:23 .. check if those tests are going to be sufficient before I try to figure out test results. 15:04:25 ack c 15:04:39 Cyril: A clarification question for Glenn. You said you will have validation tests finalised 15:04:55 .. maybe by end of this week, but it is unclear to me if you foresee gaps in what you will 15:05:07 .. be submitting in tests. Do you need any help to provide the tests? 15:05:20 Glenn: I will provide 100% coverage of validation tests. 15:05:36 .. The presentation tests though I mentioned my procedure. I will draw from TTPE then 15:05:52 .. other sources including what Pierre has done in IMSC 1.1 and will probably be soliciting 15:06:05 .. others to add to that. The only gaps I see probably are going to be audio related. 15:06:06 q+ 15:06:24 Glenn: We don't have any plans to do audio presentation work right now. 15:06:41 Nigel: I will do that, I created the adhere column in the implementation report. 15:06:47 ack nigel 15:07:07 Nigel: I have begun to produce audio style attribute presentation tests and plan to contribute 15:07:12 .. those after my vacation. 15:07:31 Glenn: On that point I noticed that you did not check the box for #audio-description, 15:07:46 .. however I think the features already cover all the features so you may already satisfy 15:07:48 .. that one as well. 15:09:10 Nigel: The difficulty with that is that the Web Speech API audio output is not available as 15:09:18 .. an input to the Web Audio API. 15:09:33 Glenn: Okay we'll have to come back to that. 15:09:39 Nigel: But that raises a really important point. 15:09:53 .. We are currently dependent on the Web Audio API Spec, and I had been assured by one 15:10:05 .. of the Chairs of the Web Audio WG that it would be in CR actually before TTML2, but 15:10:16 .. that hasn't happened, even though the spec is stable and implemented in more than 15:10:37 .. one browser. I believe the hold-up is with the team support for the Web Audio WG, whose 15:11:03 .. staff member has not been progressing this, I don't know why. Thierry, please could you 15:11:09 .. ask Chris Lilley if he can progress it? 15:11:13 Thierry: Yes I can. 15:11:15 Nigel: Thank you. 15:11:36 Glenn: Just doing a quick glance at the feature definition, audio-description is a subset 15:11:50 .. of the audio-speech features, so if you have an implementation that can support that 15:11:58 .. then it already supports audio-description. 15:12:01 Nigel: OK 15:12:15 Glenn: [details of the features] 15:12:24 Nigel: Thanks, I'll go and look again and double-check that. 15:12:42 .. Is there any requirement for continuous animation in there? 15:13:11 Glenn: Not in those feature definitions. 15:13:24 Nigel: Okay, we're mid-implementation of continuous animation of pan and gain, for information. 15:13:36 Glenn: For the sake of mentioning it, we don't have any standards in this WG or in W3C for 15:13:44 .. how many tests have to be in the test suite for some features. 15:13:48 s/res/re 15:13:57 Nigel: Okay, that's noted. 15:14:13 Glenn: I just wanted to remind us of that fact. 15:14:39 Cyril: One question about the time wallclock feature. I'm wondering who is going to support 15:14:45 .. it, if anyone would be supporting it. 15:14:49 Nigel: Remind us? 15:15:03 Glenn: We added a new clock time function to the time expression syntax. TTV will implement 15:15:43 .. validation of that, but I'm not sure who will be implementing presentation. 15:16:01 Nigel: Oh yes, the ability to add date to clock times. 15:16:18 .. What would that do? 15:16:52 Glenn: The time would be synchronised to the wallclock date and time in a presentation. 15:18:03 Nigel: I foresee that being used more for recording live events historically than for triggering events to occur. 15:18:12 Glenn: It does have presentation semantics. 15:18:39 Nigel: Right, so the CR exit criteria require a presentation processor for it. 15:18:50 Glenn: We don't say if a presentation processor is preceded by multiple transformation 15:19:01 .. processes. I don't know if that would be applicable here. If it is thought that this would 15:19:15 .. mostly be used by an authoring process then you might be able to claim that processing 15:19:24 .. up the chain has presentation semantics eventually. 15:19:47 Nigel: Thank you for the reminder, I'll have to look to see how we can support implementation of this. 15:20:36 .. Are there any other features like this? 15:20:48 Glenn: I think Cyril has mentioned all of them now. Thanks for adding that Cyril. 15:21:11 Pierre: Glenn and others, when do you think we can have a generic yea or nay on the 15:21:19 .. disparity and luminanceGain tests? 15:21:25 Glenn: By tomorrow. 15:21:34 Pierre: Awesome, thank you that would really help. 15:22:06 Nigel: Our timeline says implementation report finalised 27th September, and we need to 15:22:23 .. give time for people to provide implementations against tests, so that means we need 15:22:43 .. the tests to be finalised sufficiently far in advance. We said just over 3 weeks for TTML1. 15:22:48 .. There are a lot more tests for TTML2. 15:23:18 .. Three weeks before 27th Sep is 6th Sep. Is there any hope of finalising the test suite 15:23:21 .. by then? 15:23:36 Glenn: We can have tests by then, whether they are finalised or not is a different question. 15:23:44 Nigel: As a goal, I mean, not necessarily locked down. 15:24:05 Glenn: 6th Sep leaves about 3-4 weeks from today. It's possible, it's aggressive. 15:24:13 Nigel: We have to be aggressive to meet our timeline. 15:24:16 Glenn: Absolutely! 15:25:23 Nigel: Implementers may come back with issues on the tests, but we need a line in the sand 15:25:34 .. to go to potential implementers and say here's the test suite. 15:25:50 Glenn: It depends who will provide implementations. Skynav and Netflix will provide a lot 15:26:07 .. of coverage, and BBC and maybe IRT will provide some implementations too. 15:26:25 Andreas: IRT will implement IMSC 1.1 validation. 15:26:43 Glenn: Thank you, Andreas. There are 25 features out of 135 new features that are in IMSC1.1. 15:27:01 .. That leaves 110 features not included in IMSC 1.1. 15:27:42 .. If the audience for our testing effort is primarily those of us here I'm presuming that 15:27:54 .. we're keeping track of what's being proposed for tests and being able to be responsive. 15:28:11 Nigel: You may be right, but we have to offer the test suite to others also. 15:28:30 Glenn: Absolutely. That's why Sep 6 is okay with me for a "beta" version, which gives 15:28:34 .. people something to work with, right? 15:28:36 Nigel: Yes. 15:28:48 Cyril: I counted 141 new features not 135. Is there an issue here? 15:29:03 Glenn: Let me double check that. There may be some where all of the tests are a subset 15:29:21 .. of something else that is already tested. I think the 6 are primarily new feature labels 15:29:38 .. for things already in TTML1, like #set, which is an alias for #animation in TTML1. I think 15:29:44 .. the remaining 6 come under that category. 15:29:49 Cyril: Thank you. 15:30:04 .. Another question on the implementation report. Do we expect implementers to provide 15:30:06 .. renderings? 15:30:09 Glenn: It's not required. 15:30:18 Nigel: It's not required, it's nice to have. 15:30:33 Glenn: It's not part of the implementation report review process. The Director can't require 15:30:40 .. there to be images, because it is not a requirement. 15:30:53 .. We operate on an honour system for implementation reports, since no public demonstration 15:30:55 .. is needed. 15:30:58 Nigel: That's right. 15:32:20 .. Of course it is nice when people do provide one. Also remember that implementations 15:32:34 .. can be anonymous, as long as the team can have a reasonable belief that it does exist 15:32:41 .. and does what it says. 15:32:58 Glenn: Testing is different from HTML where the tests are targeted at browsers. We have 15:33:14 .. to allow for implementation reports from walled garden contexts where the report may 15:33:20 .. be anonymised, right. 15:33:22 Nigel: Yes. 15:34:03 Glenn: There were a couple of TTML2 issues, #945 and #950 that were substantive, where 15:34:11 .. I have implemented the deferral procedure. I just wanted to note that. 15:34:20 .. For #950 the group agreed it as a resolution. 15:34:33 .. For #945 the commenter agreed to defer it in an email to the list, which I used as the 15:34:39 .. basis for the deferral. 15:34:46 .. I wanted to note it for the minutes. 15:34:51 Nigel: Thanks for reminding me of that. 15:35:24 Glenn: At the moment there are 0 pull requests on TTML2 and 12 open issues, all of them 15:35:29 .. marked for PR. 15:35:32 Nigel: And editorial. 15:35:43 Glenn: Yes, and editorial. I will be implementing pull requests for those over the next 15:35:50 .. few weeks as we go towards PR. 15:36:04 .. You also put #973 on the agenda Nigel. 15:36:08 Nigel: Thank you for reminding me. 15:36:32 Topic: Clarify that #length-root-container-relative applies to all expressions. ttml2#973 15:36:36 github: https://github.com/w3c/ttml2/issues/973 15:38:14 Nigel: This might affect tests. It is not obvious. It also could potentially impact IMSC, where 15:38:29 .. some constraints may be needed on where rw and rh units can be used, so they are not 15:38:37 .. on every length expression. 15:38:55 .. If for example a document instance requires processor support for rw and rh but that 15:39:11 .. processor doesn't actually support it in every context, does that make the processor 15:39:17 .. unsuitable or non-conformant? 15:39:36 Glenn: We don't qualify the feature definitions, we don't say "anywhere" or "everywhere" 15:40:02 .. in the text. I don't think we qualify its context anywhere, and we don't say that if there 15:40:12 .. is no constraint on context then it applies everywhere. 15:40:19 Nigel: That might be counter-productive! 15:40:33 Glenn: I'm okay with not adding such a note. It was the intention of how we authored them 15:40:37 .. that they would apply everywhere. 15:40:53 .. We do have language about unsupported values for most properties to say what the 15:40:57 .. correct behaviour should be. 15:41:18 .. How does the language of nearest supported value apply to the definitions of features? 15:41:25 .. That's not a question we've entertained before I think. 15:42:15 Pierre: I think we do what we have done in other places, say that this particular feature 15:42:30 .. is permitted in IMSC 1.1 but add constraints like "it shall not be used in these circumstances". 15:42:48 Glenn: We have a few of those in TTML2 like extent on the tt element, which must be in px units. 15:43:02 .. There are a couple of places where the units must be the same if there are multiple values. 15:43:15 .. That does not abregate the semantics of the original feature. 15:43:39 Pierre: My current plan, we added #length-root-container-relative to IMSC 1.1 at the last 15:44:02 .. minute and marked it as at risk, I will be submitting as an issue a set of proposed 15:44:21 .. constraints and if folks have thoughts about what is really important vs less important 15:44:32 .. then please forward me your data and I will try to propose a strawman. 15:44:36 Nigel: Okay, thank you. 15:45:41 Nigel: Okay, so coming back to this issue, a claim of support for #length-root-container-relative 15:46:00 .. implies support on all length expressions in the absence of any other caveats. 15:46:03 Glenn: That's correct. 15:46:10 Pierre: That's the only logical interpretation. 15:46:39 Nigel: That's fine, do we need some editorial text that explains that, or is it unnecessary? 15:46:51 Glenn: I don't think we need anything absolutely in TTML2. I would not object to adding a 15:47:01 .. note somewhere or eventually making it a normative general rule. 15:47:15 .. I don't think we have to do anything in TTML2 1st edition if we don't want to. 15:47:57 Glenn: I would oppose saying anything specific to one feature, I wouldn't mind a general 15:47:59 .. note. 15:48:03 Nigel: Yes, that makes sens. 15:48:07 s/s./se. 15:48:42 Nigel: Any other views? 15:48:47 group: [none] 15:49:29 SUMMARY: WG generally accepting of a general note explaining non-normatively that features like this apply universally or not at all, in the absence of any other caveat. 15:49:46 github-bot, end topic 15:50:10 Topic: IMSC 1.1 15:50:15 Nigel: Is there anything to discuss here? 15:50:33 Pierre: I don't think so. I may have found a bug in the IMSC test suite - please review it 15:50:36 .. if you are interested. 15:51:02 .. Other than that, modulo luminanceGain and disparity, and root container length, the only other at risk 15:51:09 .. feature is lineShear. 15:51:29 .. Other than that, nothing to report. I'm nearly done with the IMSC 1.1 test suite, not 15:51:38 .. intended for exit criteria, just to be useful for the industry. 15:51:52 Glenn: TTPE will include TTML2 support for lineShear presentation semantics, so there's 15:52:12 .. a potential that we could be able to claim support for IMSC 1.1 lineShear. 15:52:26 Pierre: Thanks for that. I expect we would formally be able to include lineShear in IMSC 1.1. 15:52:45 .. We'll meet the exit criteria. My question is more if we want to do that. I'm still trying to 15:53:00 .. see what is the right thing. There's a thread on the CSS WG issue. Hopefully we can gather 15:53:08 .. the right data to make the decision there. 15:53:35 Topic: IMSC vNext Requirements. 15:53:43 Pierre: I have some editorial work to do there. 15:53:46 Nigel: Thank you. 15:54:13 .. The CfC for publishing a WG Note ends today, but until the issues are resolved that 15:54:18 .. decision cannot be enacted. 15:54:34 .. That's pretty straightforward. 15:54:43 Topic: CSS actions review 15:54:58 Nigel: Note that we have a new relevant CSS issue as Pierre mentioned a moment ago. 15:55:15 -> https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/2983 #2983 Support for shearing of lines and inline elements 15:55:48 Nigel: Also, yesterday, the CSS WG agreed a name for the equivalent property to fillLineGap, 15:56:04 .. which from memory I think is inline-box-sizing or something that, with property values 15:56:09 .. "normal" and "stretch". 15:57:17 Topic: TTML Profile Registry 15:57:31 Nigel: The question has been raised with EBU, and I hope there will be some feedback 15:57:49 .. on new profiles to add to the registry. We haven't had time to discuss the approach 15:58:03 .. regarding processor profiles and content profiles yet. Something to look forward to, 15:58:10 .. maybe for the agenda for TPAC? 15:58:36 Topic: Meeting Close 15:58:56 Nigel: Thanks everyone. Reminder next meeting 30th August. Enjoy the break (from meetings!). 15:59:16 .. [adjourns meeting] 15:59:35 rrsagent, make minutes 15:59:35 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2018/08/09-tt-minutes.html nigel 16:03:15 s/+q/ 16:03:37 s/glenn:/Glenn: 16:07:26 s/github-bot, end topic//g 16:08:32 s/Web Audio API./Web Audio API, so if an implementation is required to do text to speech and apply pan and gain that is difficult to do. 16:11:44 s/inline-box-sizing or something that/inline-box-sizing or something like that 16:12:02 rrsagent, make minutes 16:12:02 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2018/08/09-tt-minutes.html nigel 16:13:28 scribeOptions: -final -noEmbedDiagnostics 16:13:29 rrsagent, make minutes 16:13:29 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2018/08/09-tt-minutes.html nigel 16:16:04 tmichel has joined #tt 16:21:52 atai has left #tt 17:19:18 Zakim has left #tt 23:26:08 github-bot has joined #tt 23:27:40 slightlyoff has joined #tt