14:03:05 RRSAgent has joined #tt 14:03:05 logging to https://www.w3.org/2018/09/06-tt-irc 14:03:07 RRSAgent, make logs public 14:03:07 Zakim has joined #tt 14:03:09 Meeting: Timed Text Working Group Teleconference 14:03:09 Date: 06 September 2018 14:03:15 Log: https://www.w3.org/2018/09/06-tt-irc 14:03:56 Present: Glenn, Pierre, Nigel 14:03:58 Chair: Nigel 14:04:04 Regrets: None 14:04:07 tmichel has joined #tt 14:04:47 Topic: This meeting 14:05:13 cyril has joined #tt 14:05:25 Nigel: Today we should check against the timeline to see if we're on schedule. 14:05:37 .. In terms of discussion topics, I don't think there's anything on the agenda. 14:05:57 Pierre: I'd like to suggest one that's relevant to the tests, the issue regarding negative. 14:06:07 .. I have some new thoughts regarding the tests that I think is relevant to the tests 14:06:09 .. themselves. 14:06:17 Present+ Thierry, Cyril 14:07:21 Nigel: We have one issue marked for agenda, but I'm not sure if it should be, for TTML2. 14:07:39 .. Anything else for today's agenda? 14:07:44 group: [silence] 14:07:54 Topic: Timeline check-in 14:08:04 -> https://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/specs-timeline.html Specifications timeline 14:08:41 Nigel: For TTML1 3rd Ed, today is the deadline for comments, and I'm not aware of any. 14:08:50 .. Is anyone else aware of any incoming comments? 14:08:54 group: [silence] 14:09:04 Nigel: Then I think we have no comments to respond to. 14:09:59 .. The next step for TTML1 is to prepare the PR version for review so I can issue a CfC. 14:10:25 .. Obviously we need to have satisfied the exit criteria before we can request the transition. 14:10:44 Pierre: That's a question I had - it sounded like the implementation report has to be 14:10:50 .. completed before the desired transition date. 14:11:00 Nigel: You mean the transition request date? 14:11:08 Glenn: I don't think so, it's not part of the CfC review process. 14:12:40 .. It does mean that for example for TTML2 I have 6 days to resolve the outstanding 14:12:52 .. PR issues, which are all editorial. I am going to need help from folks to review and 14:13:02 .. approve, and I need to submit them very quickly. 14:13:06 Nigel: Time flies! 14:13:08 Glenn: It does. 14:13:22 Pierre: On TTML1 I have 3 issues right now. 14:13:36 .. One is just to match TTML2. 14:13:47 .. Consider moving "3rd Edition" to a subtitle - are you opposed to that? 14:13:57 Nigel: Let's come to those in the TTML1 agenda item. 14:14:51 .. We don't necessarily need the draft for a CfC tomorrow if we are willing to slip TTML1 14:15:08 .. to match TTML2, as we agreed, but we do need a version ready to go very soon, say 14:15:22 .. in the next 6 days to match TTML2. 14:15:45 .. Moving on to TTML2, we have 5 days of comment period remaining, and the plan has 14:16:00 .. me issuing a CfC for PR transition on 12 September. 14:16:21 .. And the implementation report needs to be finalised on 27 September. Time is very 14:16:25 .. tight for all of these. 14:16:43 .. Lastly, IMSC 1.1 deadline for comments expired on 23rd August, which we did not note 14:16:55 .. last week. Again, I'm not aware of any incoming comments, so there's nothing to respond to. 14:17:23 .. There have been a lot of pull requests very recently for IMSC 1.1 which are all now in 14:17:44 .. an approved state I think. (need to double check) Do they resolve all the open issues? 14:18:13 Pierre: There is only one that's unresolved, opened yesterday, and there's a proposed 14:18:23 .. resolution that makes sense so we can implement that today. It's editorial I guess. 14:19:09 .. It's really not substantive because the requirement that was implied could not have 14:19:11 .. occurred anyway. 14:19:15 Nigel: Yes. 14:19:31 Pierre: The only decision that the WG has to take is whether or not to keep lineShear. 14:19:38 Nigel: Added to the agenda for today. 14:20:09 Nigel: Another thing to clarify is that we don't believe the test suite has any entries in it. 14:20:12 Pierre: Correct. 14:20:26 Nigel: This will be much clearer I think to the Director if we make the PR transition requests 14:20:41 .. for TTML2 and IMSC 1.1 together, because all the referenced test requirements are met 14:20:44 .. by the TTML2 test suite. 14:21:06 .. By the way, last week we discussed the CR exit approach for TTML2 and I took an action 14:21:18 .. to write to the Director informing him of our plans, and I did that on Friday last week. 14:21:36 .. I have received no response, which from the way the note was drafted, suggests the 14:21:45 .. Director has no concerns to raise with us about that approach. 14:22:19 Nigel: Any other questions arising from the timeline? 14:22:26 .. My summary is we're just about on target but it's very tight. 14:22:40 Glenn: On TTML2 at least I'm confident that Skynav will have finished all of its work on 14:22:52 .. the test suite and the implementation for the IR. We are awaiting at least one other 14:23:03 .. implementation of transformation or validation functionality. There are also a couple 14:23:11 .. of items under audio that haven't been checked off yet. 14:23:35 Nigel: I've drafted presentation tests for the audio and am wrestling with getting our 14:24:19 .. implementation to recognise the test directory structure properly. I'm now generating 14:24:30 .. examples of the audio output to place with the test material. 14:24:48 Glenn: I had another somewhat related question about audio. 14:25:00 Nigel: I was just going to mention our reference to the Web Audio spec. 14:25:17 .. I've been chasing on this - one of my colleagues at the BBC Chairs the Web Audio WG, 14:27:22 .. and he's told me that their WG meeting today has as the main agenda topic to decide 14:28:16 .. to publish the CR, in which case the transition request should happen over the next few days. 14:28:27 .. I'll provide an update as soon as I have one later today. 14:28:41 Glenn: As a minimum we need to update the Web Audio WD date. If we go to PR with that 14:29:11 .. still in it then we have some risk. 14:29:22 Nigel: Let's not take immediate action - if it turns out there is no chance of that being 14:29:32 .. published as a CR over the next couple of weeks we may need to turn that into an 14:29:35 .. informative reference. 14:29:49 Glenn: We only actually have an informative use of it in the spec, it only appears in two 14:29:57 .. notes, so technically we don't need to have a normative reference. 14:30:10 Nigel: Oh, okay [slight surprise] 14:30:18 Glenn: [checks if the reference is informative already] 14:30:39 .. It is already informative. 14:30:43 Nigel: Oh yes so it is. 14:30:53 Glenn: Then we do not have a technical problem, we can reference a WD. 14:31:02 .. The only thing I need to do is update the date in the reference, at a minimum. 14:31:11 Nigel: OK, that's reassuring (in a way)! 14:31:22 Glenn: If they should happen to go to CR in the next 5 days then we could always update 14:31:27 .. it but it is not procedurally necessary. 14:31:53 Nigel: Yes, one of my targets for 2nd Ed would be to tighten the audio references and semantics up somewhat. 14:32:26 Topic: TTML1 14:33:06 Nigel: We have 2 pull requests open. 14:33:23 Topic: Move edition number to subtitle (#352) ttml1#353 14:33:30 github: https://github.com/w3c/ttml1/pull/353 14:34:10 Nigel: This was assigned to Philippe who has not commented further on it. There were 14:34:20 .. two views on how we present the title and subtitle, and Glenn was against making the 14:34:22 .. proposed change. 14:34:43 Nigel: Glenn, has your position altered? 14:34:47 Glenn: No it hasn't. 14:35:05 Nigel: Anything more to add? 14:35:20 Pierre: I don't understand Glenn's position and think it would be an improvement but 14:35:23 .. let's not spend time on this. 14:35:38 Nigel: We don't have consensus here, so I'm going to declare that we will not make the 14:35:47 .. change in TTML1 3rd Edition. 14:36:01 .. We can bump this to some v.next milestone while we await further data points from 14:36:04 .. Philippe. 14:36:13 Pierre: I will remove the milestone. 14:36:16 Nigel: Thank you. 14:36:54 SUMMARY: No consensus to adopt this proposal in TTML1 2nd Edition, deferring until further data points are available to support the change. 14:37:10 Topic: TTML1 3ED tests ttml1#361 14:37:15 github: https://github.com/w3c/ttml1/pull/361 14:37:42 Nigel: This was opened 29 days ago, and it took a while to review. Looking at the review 14:37:53 .. status, one person has requested changes, and that was me! 14:38:11 .. Most of the changes I requested are minor. 14:38:49 Pierre: Are they all necessary? 14:39:06 Nigel: We need to check we have a shared understanding of the intent of the zIndex text. 14:39:24 Nigel: I don't think the missing EOLs on the ends of the files are a big deal. 14:40:16 .. The use of single quotes around an attribute is not a big deal. 14:40:29 Pierre: I think that must have come from the original TTML1 test. 14:40:41 Glenn: If a font family name consists of more than one token then you need to quote it 14:40:53 .. so you might see both sets of quote characters in that attribute, the outer one for the 14:41:05 .. attribute itself and the inner one for the family name with multiple tokens. 14:41:14 .. In this case there are no multiple token family names. 14:41:23 Nigel: Conversely there's no requirement to change it. 14:41:27 Glenn: That's right, ok. 14:43:50 Pierre: Can you propose a pull request for the BrImplicitDuration.ttml test? 14:44:03 Nigel: It's just, as discussed, to change the backgroundColor of one of the paragraphs. 14:44:08 Pierre: You wanted to change the text too? 14:44:24 Nigel: Oh, that's another solution, I think the background color change is a more elegant 14:44:33 .. solution to the same issue, and we don't need to do both things. 14:46:01 Pierre: On Direction.ttml... 14:47:04 Nigel: We discussed this on 9th August, my proposal is just an XML comment that 14:47:21 .. explains that the test intentionally sets direction="rtl" and that the text "Left to right" 14:47:43 .. appears correctly that way because tts:direction only sets weak directionality. 14:47:49 Pierre: Can you propose the comment text? 14:47:50 Nigel: Sure. 14:49:04 Pierre: The next one is about the hebrew text. 14:49:24 Nigel: I just added that comment as a note for posterity. 14:49:40 Pierre: I have proposed some alternate text that says "Right to left" which is how the Hebrew 14:49:43 .. text should appear. 14:49:53 Nigel: Okay I'll check it out with an Israeli colleague. 14:50:04 s/appear/appear (taken from Google translate). 14:50:35 Nigel: In PlainSpanImplicitDuration.ttml I suggested a small wording change. Would that 14:50:40 .. be an issue to make that change? 14:51:11 Pierre: That's good, I'll make that change. 14:51:31 Nigel: ZIndex.ttml is the next one. 14:51:48 Pierre: The issue is only about the stacking relative to the root container so it does not 14:51:54 .. matter if the regions do not overlap. 14:52:25 Nigel: I don't really understand this test - what is it showing? 14:52:50 Pierre: "Does a region with tts:zIndex < 0 appear underneath the root container?" 14:52:54 Nigel: What does that even mean? 14:53:05 Pierre: I don't know, what does it mean if a region has a negative zIndex? 14:53:29 Glenn: The definition of zero is in CSS, a reference frame (don't have it here). Negative 14:53:41 .. indices are permitted in CSS. I don't remember what that meant. 14:54:33 Pierre: The spec modification is about the root container region establishing the root of 14:55:06 .. the stacking context. The previous spec said "auto" was defined by XSL 1.1 but did not 14:55:23 .. state that the semantics for values other than auto were also defined by XSL and it did 14:55:40 .. not say that the tt element established a root stacking context for scenarios other than 14:55:55 .. zIndex being "auto". The new text says the tt element always establishes a root stacking 14:55:56 .. context. 14:56:21 Glenn: By the way if you go back to CSS 2.1 it says that for integer types it always establishes 14:56:33 .. a new stacking context and for auto it does not unless it is a root element, so we needed 14:56:48 .. to say what the root element was. It was only adding useful information in the case of auto. 14:56:51 https://www.w3.org/TR/2011/REC-CSS2-20110607/visuren.html#propdef-z-index 14:57:02 Pierre: We've had this discussion, the issue is the previous text did not state what was the 14:57:17 .. root context. 14:57:21 Nigel: What does the text show? 14:57:34 Pierre: It makes sure that all those values yield to a region that is displayed. 14:57:55 Nigel: Right, so the relative zIndex is not important, it is just that they should all appear? 14:58:01 Pierre: Yes, that is how it is constructed. 14:58:25 Nigel: Thank you, I will propose text in the metadata that states that, so people coming 14:58:34 .. to this in the future can understand what we were demonstrating. 14:58:41 .. Is that ok? 14:58:43 Pierre: Yes, absolutely. 14:58:54 .. The "left to right" data could be in the metadata too. 14:59:01 Nigel: Yes, I was thinking the same thing. 14:59:26 SUMMARY: Changes to be made over the next 24 hours. 14:59:44 Pierre: In terms of implementation, TTPE renders them all. 14:59:52 Glenn: I didn't check TTPE does too, but will do that ASAP. 15:00:12 Pierre: TTV already validates all of them, so the one that would be ideal would be to check 15:01:09 .. that TTPE does too, especially for two value font sizes. 15:02:12 Nigel: Ideally, since the changes don't affect validation, we should have two presentation 15:02:18 .. implementations for each change. 15:02:29 Pierre: We don't have a second implementation for two value fonts. 15:02:52 Glenn: In Geneva I was able to run the old DFXP Viewer which supported anamorphic fonts. 15:03:04 .. We signed off on that for the initial IR for first edition. 15:03:19 Nigel: If that shows the behaviour we want, it would be good enough. 15:03:33 Glenn: Why are we testing this? 15:03:42 Pierre: We made a substantive change in a way that we expect matches implementations. 15:03:50 .. I believe it should work with old implementations. 15:03:52 Glenn: Ok 15:04:02 .. By the way that was a different organisation than Skynav at that time. 15:04:29 .. It was Extensible Formatting Systems Inc, XFI, which has now closed its business. 15:04:43 .. Skynav inherited the source code for it. The team that implemented it is no longer with 15:04:52 .. Skynav, although I was one of the implementers. 15:05:21 Pierre: When can we determine if we have a real problem here? 15:05:29 Nigel: I'd like to check there is no validation change. 15:05:34 Pierre: There is no validation change. 15:05:51 Glenn: This begs the question why we have the test here. 15:06:01 Pierre: We discussed this, the change is to clarify the intent. 15:06:10 Nigel: The Director asked for tests on the substantive changes. 15:07:15 .. I wonder if the Flash player implements anamorphic fonts. 15:07:25 Glenn: You could ask Andrew Kirkpatrick. 15:07:32 Nigel: OK I'll send him a message. 15:08:36 Pierre: If there's no independent implementation of a presentation engine with 15:08:52 tmichel has joined #tt 15:09:02 .. anamorphic fonts, what happens? 15:09:20 Nigel: We only need to show that existing implementations already exhibit the clarified 15:10:18 .. behaviour, that's why I've been asking about other implementations. 15:12:05 Pierre: I'll see if I can drive DFXP Viewer to work with this test. 15:12:40 Topic: TTML1 (continued) 15:12:55 Nigel: Those are both the pull requests; there are some open issues with the 3rd Ed PR 15:13:02 .. milestone, which I believe are editorial. 15:13:15 .. We need pull requests for those. 15:13:36 Pierre: I can do that today. 15:13:39 Nigel: Fantastic, thank you. 15:13:55 .. I think that's all on TTML1 15:14:00 Topic: TTML2 15:14:29 action-443? 15:14:30 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 15:14:30 https://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/tracker/actions/443 15:14:59 ACTION-443: We are not going to be able to get a message to ARIB at this stage in time for them to respond within the deadline for comments. 15:14:59 Notes added to ACTION-443 Prepare a document showing mapping arib ruby extension features to ttml2 for use as a liaison document to arib.. 15:16:52 Nigel: Given that we cannot grant ARIB sufficient time to respond within the deadline for 15:17:04 .. comments period I think it would be impolite to send a liaison message at this time. 15:17:10 .. I propose we close the action. 15:17:19 Glenn: I'm okay with that. I don't see ARIB in the member list. 15:17:26 Nigel: No, they're a liaison. 15:17:33 close action-443 15:17:34 Closed action-443. 15:18:54 Nigel: I see issue 695 is marked for agenda, but I believe it is incorrectly labelled. 15:19:05 Glenn: Yeah, you're right, I've removed the label. 15:19:07 Nigel: Thank you. 15:19:29 Nigel: We don't have anything labelled for agenda. 15:19:46 Glenn: We have one open pull request for which we are awaiting the timeout - it is 15:19:59 .. approved so in the absence of an objection I plan to merge that after the 2 weeks. 15:20:01 Nigel: Yes. 15:20:12 Glenn: If you think that any of the audio features will not be covered by your work then 15:20:19 .. I need a pull request to remove the relevant ones. 15:20:25 .. I need to know soon, like tomorrow. 15:20:42 Nigel: Okay, my agenda for tomorrow is to run the tests through my implementation and 15:21:03 .. generate sample output so I will decide while doing that if the features can all be supported. 15:21:23 Glenn: One other question, for Cyril. 15:21:35 .. Do you have any estimate when Netflix will be able to check the boxes in the appropriate 15:21:37 .. column? 15:21:48 Cyril: No, I would say this week or early next week because of the deadlines. 15:22:13 Glenn: Waiting until the last minute (27th September) would be detrimental to out mental 15:22:14 .. health! 15:22:49 Cyril: We have several implementations, I need to choose which to show. 15:22:57 Nigel: You can register multiple ones! 15:23:19 Cyril: I will try to fill that in at least partially this week. 15:23:28 Regrets: Andreas 15:23:39 Cyril: Stefan asked me what is the legend for the implementation report. What is the 15:23:41 .. colour code? 15:24:07 .. I think there was a legend at some point but it isn't there anymore. 15:24:21 Glenn: Green means verified and tested, yellow means "working on it, partially implemented 15:24:34 .. and that we have to finalise it". 15:24:41 Cyril: So Green is done, yellow is an intention. 15:24:47 Glenn: Yes. 15:25:03 Cyril: The next question was about the #v, #x, #t columns - do we do that manually or is 15:25:07 .. there a formula? 15:25:20 Glenn: If you add an entry then you should add to the count, manually, and add the same 15:25:27 .. number to #t to make the total come out correct. 15:25:31 Cyril: Thanks. 15:25:38 Glenn: I will go through and verify these numbres. 15:25:42 s/bres/bers 15:25:55 .. The main thing to do is to add the entry into the appropriate column, for example IRT 15:26:02 .. SubCheck has a lot of entries there. 15:26:39 Nigel: Can we discuss non negative integers now? 15:27:01 Pierre: Having worked on some validation implementation, I'm getting convinced that, 15:27:55 .. let's take the case of tts:backgroundExtent, the expression of the syntax is `` 15:28:06 .. so that syntactic specification allows both positive and negative numbers with unrestricted 15:28:26 .. plus and minus signs. In the prose underneath the table, it is stated that in case two 15:28:45 .. values are used then both must resolve to non-negative length. As an 15:28:58 .. implementer I conclude that -0 is allowed because the syntax is permitted but that from 15:29:11 .. a value standpoint, not a syntactic one, the value has to be non-negative, but that means 15:29:23 .. that -0 resolves to 0 mathematically and therefore that's a valid value. 15:29:29 Glenn: That seems correct to me. 15:29:43 .. When I say it must resolve to a non-negative value the only reasonable interpretation is 15:29:52 .. that it refers to the semantic value not the syntactic one. 15:30:06 Pierre: We don't have to change anything now in the spec, but I would say that the 15:30:20 .. semantic values are constrained outside the table and is based on the mathematical 15:30:56 .. value rather than the lexical value in the "Values" row. 15:31:09 Glenn: We probably need to remind readers that if the lexical value -0 can appear somewhere 15:31:25 .. then it is semantic value zero, and then clarify the use of the terms negative or non-negative. 15:31:41 Pierre: I do not think we need to spend any time on this now as long as there are no 15:31:53 .. tests where the lexical value -0 is used. We never run into that issue. 15:32:05 Nigel: Does it have a wider implication for tests? 15:32:22 Pierre: As Glenn just confirmed, as long as no test uses -0 we have no difficulties. 15:32:35 Glenn: Actually there are a number of places in the TTML2 valid tests that has it: 15:32:56 .. letterSpacing, gain, fontShear, disparity, pan, shear, lineShear. 15:34:18 Nigel: I'm hearing that -0 is in the tests and is valid, so we don't need to make any change, right? 15:35:04 Glenn: We are not clear enough. I will create an issue for 2nd Ed to clarify this. 15:35:22 Pierre: The reason I'm raising it is in the light of the long thread, we need to clarify it. 15:35:36 .. "non-negative" is a named syntax that does not include -0 so it seems important to 15:35:49 .. clarify that in the text the term "non negative" does semantically include values from the 15:35:55 .. syntactic expression "-0". 15:38:25 Nigel: Looking at TTML2 issues, there are 14 editorial issues open with a target 15:38:28 .. milestone of PR. 15:38:51 .. Glenn, you have a lot on your plate - did you say you want assistance on those? 15:39:04 Glenn: I need rapid reviews, I will post the pull requests in the next couple of days. 15:39:12 .. Please try not to nitpick in those reviews. 15:39:21 Nigel: It's all in the eye of the beholder! 15:39:47 .. I think we've covered everything on TTML2 right now. 15:42:27 .. Is now a good moment to transcribe the google spreadsheet into a wiki page? 15:42:40 Glenn: It's being actively updated right now so let's wait for it to settle down. 15:42:45 Cyril: I think it's too early. 15:42:52 Topic: IMSC 15:43:04 Pierre: Can we talk about imsc#444? 15:43:29 Topic: Strictly negative = negative. imsc#444 15:43:34 github: https://github.com/w3c/imsc/issues/444 15:43:49 Pierre: Given the conversation earlier I think we don't need to do anything right now. 15:43:51 Glenn: I concur. 15:44:26 Nigel: I propose to resolve to close with no change. 15:44:35 .. Do we need an editorial change? 15:45:21 RESOLUTION: Close with no change. 15:45:25 github-bot, end topic 15:46:24 Topic: IMSC (continued) 15:46:28 Nigel: Is there anything else for IMSC? 15:46:32 Pierre: I don't think so. 15:47:11 Nigel: I think we will need an implementation report page that says "we've met exit criteria, 15:47:24 .. all the new features are tested as part of TTML2" 15:47:31 Pierre: We have a wiki page. What do we need to say? 15:47:41 pal has joined #tt 15:48:42 Nigel: I think we need to copy/paste the SOTD CR Exit Criteria, and state that all new 15:49:19 .. features are tested as part of the TTML2 IR test suite. 15:49:24 Thierry: We will remove the table. 15:49:38 Nigel: I was wondering if it would be helpful to copy in the TTML2 tests, but that would be 15:49:40 .. duplication. 15:49:50 Thierry: Duplication is always troublesome. 15:50:32 Pierre: I have update the above wiki page, please review. 15:51:00 Nigel: Looks good, there are some tweaks to make to the links, and I might flesh the text 15:51:02 .. out a bit. 15:52:26 Thierry: We could add the list of features targeted by the sentence, the delta between 15:52:29 .. 1.0.1 and 1.1. 15:52:40 Pierre: That's in the spec section L.2.5 15:52:46 .. I can link to it. 15:53:02 Nigel: We can continue this offline. 15:53:12 Topic: IMSC #lineShear and #shear features. 15:53:29 Nigel: We need to decide if the at-risk #lineShear and #shear features should remain or 15:53:31 .. be removed. 15:53:37 .. Any views? 15:54:14 Pierre: A couple of data points. Most importantly, it is possible to achieve lineShear with 15:54:29 .. only using shear if the author introduces explicit p elements. So it is fair to say that the 15:54:41 .. absence of lineShear is not fatal. It is not great semantically in case there is word wrap, 15:55:06 .. although unplanned word wrap in Japanese is already bad. 15:55:19 Glenn: Actually there is a well defined set of breaking rules called kinsoku but I don't think 15:55:24 .. we need to deal with them right now. 15:55:31 Pierre: They are not part of the TTML line breaking algorithm. 15:55:43 Glenn: We only refer to uax14 so whatever that does is what we have specified effectively. 15:55:57 Pierre: My understanding is that in practice the desirable line breaking goes beyond uax14. 15:56:09 Glenn: That's correct, we don't specify that anywhere and nor does CSS. 15:56:23 Pierre: In Japanese, for TTML2, my understanding is that line breaking is primarily going 15:56:42 .. to be a manual affair and automatic word wrap will result in undesirable effects, so although 15:56:52 .. it is not ideal lineShear can be done with shear. 15:57:10 .. The other data point is that implementing lineShear in CSS is really unpleasant. It's 15:57:23 .. more complicated than existing line breaking because ruby containers have to be broken 15:57:36 .. up and reassembled across lines. 15:57:49 Glenn: CSS is not clear here - in my mind line breaks inside a ruby boundary are left 15:57:52 .. implementation dependent. 15:58:08 Pierre: I agree. We may see some progress there, but in the short term, realistically, it is 15:58:22 .. unlikely that imsc.js will implement that feature. I have pinged a couple of folks asking 15:58:37 .. if lineShear is really important and I have not received conclusive answers. I am personally 15:58:54 .. leaning towards removing lineShear. If there is an emergency we could add it back in to 15:58:58 .. a future edition. 15:59:17 Glenn: TTPE internally has an implementation awaiting integration into the public github. 15:59:37 .. We will be reporting positive implementations of all three shear features. That raises 15:59:49 .. the question of if we want it in IMSC given the usage expectation. 15:59:59 Pierre: Thank you, my argument for removing it is not based on lack of implementation. 16:00:09 Glenn: I have no opinion on whether to include or exclude it from IMSC. 16:00:15 I must go to another meeting. sorry. 16:00:16 Nigel: I have no opinion either. 16:00:29 bye. 16:00:45 Pierre: One option is that the outcome of this meeting is to state which feature we plan to 16:01:00 .. remove and there's only lineShear I think. If somebody really has a strong reaction they 16:01:09 .. have a short time to respond. 16:01:36 Nigel: Cyril, you're probably one of the more likely users. 16:01:48 Cyril: I don't have a strong opinion. I agree with Pierre that you can probably do without 16:02:04 .. lineShear if you introduce separate paragraphs, but line wrapping... I have to think about it. 16:02:30 Glenn: As you're aware Cyril, the cap format uses fontShear as opposed to lineShear and 16:02:40 .. that's implemented in TTML2 and TTPE so I don't know what requirements you have for 16:02:47 .. doing lineShear or shear at the block level. 16:03:01 Cyril: As I said earlier the behaviour of fontShear is not acceptable. We need either block 16:03:04 .. shear or lineShear. 16:03:17 Glenn: Right, it's confusing now what's needed and what's available. 16:03:31 Cyril: I agree, our implementation does block shear and line shear now, but the difference 16:03:36 .. would only be visible on edge cases. 16:03:53 Pierre: I have to chair another meeting. My proposal is to remove lineShear to give folk 16:04:15 .. a chance to respond. 16:04:20 Nigel: I will highlight this in the minutes email. 16:04:54 Pierre: I checked DFXP Viewer and it does not support two value font size so we have an issue. I will continue this offline. 16:05:15 Nigel: Thanks, we're out of time for today. [adjourns meeting] 16:05:27 rrsagent, make minutes 16:05:27 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2018/09/06-tt-minutes.html nigel 16:20:56 s/.. completed before the desired transition date./Pierre: completed before the desired transition date. 16:28:08 Zakim has left #tt 16:28:19 s/ou can register multiple ones/ou can register multiple implementations 16:28:41 s/github-bot, end topic//g 16:29:05 rrsagent, make minutes 16:29:05 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2018/09/06-tt-minutes.html nigel 16:35:24 scribeOptions: -final -noEmbedDiagnostics 16:35:26 rrsagent, make minutes 16:35:26 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2018/09/06-tt-minutes.html nigel