14:01:45 RRSAgent has joined #tt 14:01:45 logging to https://www.w3.org/2018/09/27-tt-irc 14:01:47 RRSAgent, make logs public 14:01:47 Zakim has joined #tt 14:01:49 Meeting: Timed Text Working Group Teleconference 14:01:49 Date: 27 September 2018 14:01:54 Log: https://www.w3.org/2018/09/27-tt-irc 14:02:40 Present+ Andreas, Cyril, Pierre, Thierry, Nigel 14:02:46 Regrets: None 14:02:51 Chair: Nigel 14:02:56 scribe: nigel 14:03:44 Topic: This meeting 14:03:53 atai2 has joined #tt 14:03:57 Present+ Glenn 14:04:26 Nigel: Today, we have the CfC update, confirming the Implementation Reports, 14:04:38 .. and if possible requesting transition to PR, 14:04:48 .. IMSC vNext Reqs publication, 14:04:59 .. TPAC 2018 planning 14:05:06 .. ... anything else? 14:05:16 Pierre: [need to leave in 30 minutes] 14:05:27 Nigel: Ok, anything else for the agenda? 14:05:31 group: [nothing] 14:05:43 Topic: CfC Status 14:06:11 Nigel: As I emailed to the reflector yesterday, the CfCs for the PR versions of TTML1 3ed, TTML2 and IMSC 1.1 are closed with 14:06:25 .. no objections received, so those are now recorded resolutions, recorded in my emails. 14:06:35 .. Thank you everyone for reviewing those documents. 14:07:00 .. The only remaining preconditions I'm aware of prior to requesting transition are to confirm we have completed the 14:07:07 .. Implementation Reports, which we're about to come to. 14:07:21 .. Are there any other tasks to do? 14:07:52 Thierry: I've prepared the transition requests. 14:08:07 Nigel: I've reviewed and fed back on the TTML2. 14:08:39 Thierry: Yes, that's done. I think I'm waiting for a response on the other two transition requests. I've made a few edits 14:08:44 .. so I'll send those to you to review. 14:08:51 Nigel: Thank you, I'll do that. 14:09:00 Thierry: Also all the WBS questionnaires for AC review are done. 14:09:12 .. Once the transition is requested I will need to draft the announcement. 14:09:14 .. We're ready and on time. 14:09:49 Nigel: Just an aside - the detailed timeline has been an incredibly useful resource for tracking what we're doing 14:10:04 .. and driving us forward, and everyone has worked very hard to meet those dates. Thank you. 14:10:07 Thierry: Thank you. 14:10:26 Topic: TTML1 Implementation Report 14:10:59 -> https://www.w3.org/wiki/TimedText/TTML1-3ED_implementation_report TTML1 3rd Edition Implementation Report 14:11:21 Nigel: Note I've created a category for the Implementation Reports: 14:11:38 -> https://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?title=Category:ImplementationReport&action=edit&redlink=1 Implementation Report Category 14:12:48 Nigel: I'd like to do minor polishing on this to reference the CR Exit Criteria, group the implementations by organisation, 14:13:05 .. and be explicit that the CR Exit Criteria have been met. 14:14:47 .. Aside from that, every test has at least two passing implementations from at least two organisations, so we're good there I think. 14:15:10 .. Any other comments, is everyone happy with this and my proposed small changes? 14:15:26 Glenn: Question is "are there any objections". No objection here. 14:15:44 Nigel: Thank you, silence is assent here! 14:15:50 group: [no objections] 14:16:21 Nigel: Thank you, in that case I will make my editorial changes and we can proceed. 14:16:29 .. Do we need a "this is final" banner on the top? 14:16:46 Glenn: Not yet at least, we might have some tweaking as we go further. 14:16:54 Pierre: I think we'll do that once we've published. 14:17:03 Glenn: Exactly, once we go to Rec we can add that banner. 14:17:08 Nigel: Ok that works for me. 14:17:45 Pierre: Just to confirm, on TTML1 we're good to go? 14:18:24 Nigel: Yes. I will review the transition request and then we're good to go. 14:18:27 Pierre: Thank you. 14:18:33 Topic: IMSC 1.1 Implementation report 14:18:59 -> https://www.w3.org/wiki/TimedText/IMSC1_1_Implementation_Report IMSC 1.1 Implementation Report 14:19:42 Nigel: This IR shows no tests needed. 14:19:53 Cyril: I think it's a bit awkward to have the empty tests section. 14:20:16 .. Suggest replacing the 3rd sentence "For this specification..." to point to the IRs of TTML2 and IMSC 1.0.1 14:20:42 The following is the implementation report for the IMSC 1.1 specification. This implementation report is used to demonstrate implementation experience for transition to Proposed Recommendation. All features of IMSC1.1 are implemented and documented either as part of the implementation report of IMSC1.0.1 (link) or as part of TTML2's implementation report (link). Do not hesitate to direct questions and/or results to the TTWG mailing list [1] and/or the IMSC1.1 Ed 14:21:11 Nigel: I like to reproduce the CR Exit Criteria in the IR for convenience, but I like the other text. 14:21:26 .. I'll also propose changing the "Tests" heading to "Features" 14:21:53 Nigel: I can take those two suggestions editorially and make that look better. 14:21:55 Cyril: OK 14:21:59 Nigel: Any other points on this? 14:22:16 Glenn: I just fixed an out of date link to the TTML2 IR that was in the IMSC 1.1 IR, FYI. 14:22:19 Nigel: Thank you 14:22:40 Glenn: The TTML2 IR was in the wrong location, which is why I think the CSS wasn't working before, because it has to be 14:22:47 .. enabled on a per top-level-directory basis. 14:22:50 Nigel: That makes sense. 14:23:22 Glenn: By the way on the transition request do you need the presence of any of the Editors? 14:23:55 Thierry: I don't think there will be a call. If there is a need they will schedule a call, but it shouldn't trigger a call I think. 14:24:10 Glenn: Yes I don't see any reason why we need to. In the past I've attended when there were questions. 14:24:18 .. I don't think we have any outstanding objections to deal with here. 14:24:22 Nigel: I'm not aware of any. 14:24:48 Topic: TTML2 Implementation Report 14:24:52 -> https://www.w3.org/wiki/TimedText/TTML2ImplementationReport TTML2 Implementation Report 14:25:12 Nigel: First, thank you to Glenn for putting the detail together on this, and for everyone else for working on the upstream 14:25:25 .. online spreadsheet. This has been a massive effort. 14:25:38 Glenn: Spaciba. Thank you. 14:26:10 glenn has joined #tt 14:26:16 Nigel: In the past few hours I have: 14:26:24 .. * added the CR exit criteria 14:26:33 .. * Added the organisation supplying each implementation 14:27:01 .. (please let me know if you don't want your organisation listed!) 14:27:02 очень хорошо, спасибо 14:27:15 .. * Added a column to Table 3 assessing the CR Exit Criteria. 14:27:18 .. They all pass! 14:28:00 .. Glenn already asked for people to check their implementations are correctly represented. If there are any changes please 14:28:19 .. let Glenn know for the totals, and me know in case the CR Exit Criteria test needs to be changed. 14:28:30 Cyril: It's a lot better, thank you Glenn for having reorganised it. 14:28:51 .. I have one concern that the #T column is misleading to count so many implementations when we have at least 8. 14:28:59 .. I don't think we need the #T column to be so big. 14:29:14 Glenn: It's accurate as defined and will take effort that's not needed at this point to change it. 14:29:22 .. The data was generated by a formula in the spreadsheet. 14:29:29 .. What you're suggesting would require going through and changing that. 14:30:25 .. It's not misleading if you read the description. 14:30:42 Nigel: Actually they're misleading in another way because they count non-independent implementations the same as 14:32:02 .. independent ones. That's why I added the CR Exit Criteria column. The totals aren't actually useful - I didn't use them 14:32:17 .. when assessing the CR exit criteria. It will be a lot of effort to remove those columns. 14:32:53 Glenn: I wouldn't object to them being removed, I just don't want to do the work! 14:33:06 Cyril: OK I guess I can live with the totals columns remaining. 14:33:30 Nigel: From my perspective this IR is complete. Are there any other changes that anyone wants to make on it? 14:34:04 Glenn: I should note that when I created the validation test results tables it was a bit of a manual process because the 14:34:23 .. implementers did not provide me data in terms of pass/fail tests. What I had to do was take the data from the features 14:34:40 .. table and mutate it to create the data for the validation and presentation test results. So wherever for example a validation 14:35:00 .. implementation had reported F (full) meaning "passed all the validity and invalidity tests" I could check off all the tests against 14:35:08 .. that feature. Otherwise I did not do so for that implementation. 14:35:28 .. So for those that were marked S I could only mark off the valid validity tests because I didn't know which of the invalidity 14:35:46 .. tests failed. If you wonder why there are no Fails in any of those tests, that's because I had no Fail data from any of the 14:35:59 .. implementers. I don't think there's an issue there. That's why I asked implementers to check their column. 14:36:50 Nigel: That's a good point, do we have the test pass/fail data? 14:37:04 Cyril: For NFLX-V I would have to regenerate that data, I don't have it any more. 14:38:55 Andreas: I think we have for the different features a list of which tests failed. 14:39:02 Nigel: The tests that pass are even more important in a way. 14:39:26 Andreas: Okay. You want documentation of which test files pass and which fail? 14:40:32 Nigel: I think we need to know which tests pass. 14:41:27 Andreas: Perhaps I misunderstood. 14:41:48 Nigel: I think what's needed is that the validation table entries are checked because Glenn explained that he derived the 14:42:16 .. values in those tables and I took it that there is some possibility of an error. 14:42:23 Glenn: Especially tables 1 and 2. 14:43:09 Andreas: My understanding is that the minimum entry point to say something is implemented is to pass all Valid tests. 14:43:24 .. So there should be no false negatives, that would make a valid file show up as invalid. 14:43:34 .. If something is implemented then at least it passes the valid tests. 14:43:55 .. For the invalid tests, there may be some who do not reveal an invalid message, in which case the invalid test did not pass 14:43:57 .. the test. 14:44:13 .. And so the conclusion of Glenn is correct that at least all the Valid tests passed. 14:44:32 Glenn: I would suggest Andreas that you have IRT check all of the Table 1 and 2 entries for subcheck and Cyril the same for 14:44:38 .. the NFLX-V column. 14:44:44 .. Primarily table 1. 14:45:01 .. I just looked again and see that there were a couple of features that IRT did not report either F or S for animation, so they 14:45:10 .. did not get checked as passed under Table 1 Validation tests. 14:45:13 Andreas: Ok 14:45:30 Glenn: All the rest were either F or S. I think in the case of NFLX-V all but time-wallclock got reported as F or S. 14:45:35 Cyril: That's correct. 14:45:46 .. All of the others were partial or full. 14:46:05 Glenn: I could discern from looking at the result that the validators that reported that they passed the invalidity tests were 14:46:22 .. doing so for values that were tested by the schema. For example all attributes that are typed in the schema as an enumeration 14:46:41 .. type were checked off as Full pretty much. That makes sense to me. The ones that are not typed as enumeration values 14:46:49 .. require special purpose parsers which is a little extra work. 14:47:41 Andreas: I'm just checking. I think for the Valid tests it is straightforward, it's always passed if we checked something. For the 14:48:11 .. invalid content test to mark it as Passed, it's only for tests that are implemented fully, correct? Just for F? 14:48:35 Glenn: If you had reported the feature as Strictly passing (S) then I checked off all of the tests as passed in the Valid content table, Table 1. 14:48:57 .. If neither F nor S was reported for a feature then I did not check off the tests associated with that feature in the Invalidity test content table 2. 14:49:12 Nigel: And for F you checked off both of them? 14:49:22 Glenn: That's correct. Sorry that was hard to parse! 14:50:01 Nigel: OK, please do check those columns. Is there any more on that 14:50:06 s/that/that? 14:50:24 Glenn: I'm not expecting any changes unless Table 4 needs changing. 14:50:55 Nigel: Thank you, any other points to raise on the implementation report. 14:51:12 Glenn: This IR for TTML2 was a lot more complicated than for TTML1. 14:51:24 .. And many more tests. 14:51:30 Nigel: Yes, and all the better for it! 14:51:49 Nigel: In that case, I'm declaring that barring any final checks of table entries, this implementation report is confirmed. 14:52:38 Topic: IMSC vNext Requirements 14:52:52 Nigel: The only thing to report on this is that we published the IMSC v1.1 requirements. 14:53:04 -> https://www.w3.org/TR/2018/NOTE-imsc-1.1-reqs-20180925 IMSC v1.1 Requirements Note. 14:53:15 Nigel: Thank you Thierry for getting that published, and everyone for contributing to it. 14:54:00 Topic: TPAC 2018 14:55:21 Nigel: I've edited the Wiki page 14:56:00 -> https://www.w3.org/wiki/TimedText/tpac2018 TTWG TPAC 2018 page 14:56:45 Nigel: After last week's call I updated the wiki page and agenda to match. 14:58:39 Glenn: I have some input from some people that they are interested in fleshing out Karaoke features or at least verifying that 14:58:54 .. what we have can support it, or any barriers to usage. If we need to add any features to support it, along with live 14:59:15 .. captioning I think we should also look again at roll-up support and see if we can do anything to make it easier to do that. 14:59:39 .. We need some tests that verify we can emulate roll-up using our current animation technology. I'm in favour of having a few 14:59:43 .. minutes to discuss these items. 14:59:48 Nigel: Ok we have time to do that. 15:00:06 Glenn: I should probably also go through the 2nd Ed issues logged against TTML2 to see if some of those bear discussion. 15:00:10 Nigel: Sounds good. 15:00:42 .. We should probably lump 2nd Ed requirements into the "Future requirements" section. 15:01:50 .. I think we should consider celebrating on the Monday evening. 15:01:57 Glenn: Sure, let's pick a venue. 15:02:39 Nigel: Let's do that offline. 15:03:29 Topic: TTML2 Implementation Report revisited 15:03:50 Andreas: Before, there was just the feature documentation, on the wiki page now we have an entry for every test file. 15:04:19 .. We did not give any information on the individual test files although we had that information. 15:04:48 .. I think all the marks that Glenn set should be okay. The question is if we should then mark some additional files as 15:05:08 .. passing. The feature may only be strictly passing, so there were no false negatives, but some features may have reported 15:05:24 .. false positives, but I'm not sure if this is needed at this point in time because we have enough to cover the implementation. 15:05:29 .. I'm not sure if we should update the table. 15:05:51 Nigel: I agree, the thing we should avoid is a misrepresentation, so if the page shows a test passing, but in fact it does not, 15:05:59 .. then we need to address that quickly. 15:06:22 Andreas: Yes, but this should not be the case, as Glenn described. 15:07:40 Nigel: The situation we want to avoid is a misrepresentation - it's particularly concerning if an implementation claims to 15:07:56 .. pass a test but in fact does not. If you want to make additional claims about tests that pass but are not marked as passing, 15:07:59 .. that's also fine. 15:08:04 Andreas: Okay I understand. 15:08:19 Topic: TTML2 references to W3C specs 15:08:50 Glenn: We had from last week's meeting a request to update the informative references to W3C specifications, specifically 15:09:09 .. to CSS documents and to Web Audio. In the intervening period Pierre pointed out that the URLs for the two XML Schema 15:09:25 .. normative references were not specific URLs even though the text of those bibliographic entries had dates in them so they 15:09:40 .. could be implied. In both cases those URLs were updated, and in the case of the informative references in some cases I 15:09:58 .. updated the list of authors, editors etc. It's all up to date and all the W3C documents referenced now have specific dated 15:10:04 .. URLs in both the normative and informative sections. 15:10:08 Nigel: Thank you for that update. 15:10:49 Topic: Meeting Close 15:11:52 Nigel: We've completed all of our agenda topics, thank you. I will review the two remaining draft transition requests straight 15:12:00 .. away and then Thierry when that's done you can make the requests. 15:12:03 Thierry: I will do that. 15:12:09 Nigel: Thank you everyone. [adjourns meeting] 15:12:13 rrsagent, make minutes 15:12:13 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2018/09/27-tt-minutes.html nigel 15:21:30 scribeOptions: -final -noEmbedDiagnostics 15:21:32 rrsagent, make minutes 15:21:32 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2018/09/27-tt-minutes.html nigel 15:52:57 atai2 has left #tt 16:31:19 Zakim has left #tt