See also: IRC log
<scribe> scribe: nigel
Nigel: For today I see that
Pierre suggested we cover future timelines and f2f
meeting
... at the top of the meeting.
Mike: I have 30-45 minutes only.
Nigel: I did want to take a spin
through the profiles registry as well.
... I don't think there are any other main agenda topics.
... But before we go ahead, I'd like to thank everyone for all
the great work to get us
... to Recommendation today for TTML1 3ED, TTML2 and IMSC
1.1
... Congratulations everyone!
... And sticking to the timeline we agreed about a year ago was
fantastic - a really
... impressive achievement.
Nigel: We have 13 issues and 4
pull requests.
... And Glenn has volunteered to Edit as well as Mike.
Glenn: I have started an edit to
prepare a pull request.
... I'm not ready to discuss any of the issues today.
Nigel: OK, any issues or pull requests that anyone does want to discuss?
Glenn: I'm hoping to wrap up the
current issues in the next few weeks, probably by
... 29th November.
Nigel: I see that on #52 I asked for more detail and you added it to the issue, thank you.
Glenn: It would be good to review
and approve the open pull requests in the next
... week or so.
Nigel: +1
... Two were open by me, one by Glenn.
Glenn: FYI I will not be available on the Thanksgiving week on 22nd Nov.
Nigel: It seems we are not quite
ready to discuss the issues today, but I'd like to set a
... target of publishing by the end of the year, which means
getting to a finished draft
... for approval by the end of November.
... Does that seem reasonable?
Glenn: I think so
Nigel: Let's aim for that then.
Mike: Is the document still discoverable?
Nigel: I see that the profile registry hits the top three spots on duckduckgo, so yes.
Nigel: Thank you everyone who has
contributed to working towards a proposed date
... and location for this.
... I think we've gravitated towards...
Andreas: At TPAC we discussed a
joint meeting with the EBU Timed Text group,
... especially to discuss further progress on adoption of one
of the TTML specs for the
... live subtitling use case, and for that joint meeting we
plan Friday morning Feb 1st,
... from 0830-1230, location EBU in Geneva.
... Because this would of course not be sufficient to justify
travelling and we may have
... other things to discuss, we have also 31st January
available for a TTWG meeting, the
... complete Thursday. Then it depends on member preferences if
we also take some of
... the 30th January as the meeting day for TTWG.
... The minimum I think that would be available for a TTWG
meeting is Thursday complete
... day and Friday morning for the joint meeting with the
possible extension to use part
... of Wednesday.
Nigel: Thank you for that.
... In terms of agenda items, I think we would expect to
discuss future requirements,
... potentially Charter revisions for later in the year, and of
course in the joint meeting,
... adoption of live subtitles as you already mentioned
Andreas.
Pierre: I would be available. I
think it's pretty important to put a January meeting in
... because if we don't have agreement on requirements by
January then we won't have
... any spec updates by year's end.
... It looks like an important set of requirements will be
around live, and a lot of the
... requirements came from Europe, so it seems like a good idea
to have that discussion
... in Europe to make it easier for folks there to join.
Glenn: I'm available on 31st and
1st. The 30th would be tough. I presume we would
... have the afternoon of Friday 1st?
Andreas: Part of the membership
would not be available on Friday afternoon, and we
... also want EBU Timed Text group meetings to attend, and they
will hopefully attend
... on Friday morning.
Glenn: How about Saturday morning?
Andreas: I don't think that's really an option, let's see.
Nigel: I don't think so.
Pierre: 12 hours of meeting should be sufficient, right?
Glenn: Depends on whether we go
into the meeting with new requirements documents
... that nobody has looked at yet, as opposed to something we
can review before the meeting.
Pierre: My thinking is this can
only work if requirements have been submitted in December
... so the meeting in January is strictly to address any
concerns.
Glenn: Then we have to get on that right away.
Pierre: Yes. Using our experience
over the last 12 months, we need completed requirements
... by end of January, based on initial requirements from
mid-December, at the latest.
... Since we're not looking at major changes, that's probably
realistic.
Glenn: TTML2 2nd Ed?
Pierre: And/or a module on live,
however we want to do that.
... You brought up Karaoke too, maybe that's another module or
a 2nd Ed.
... The scope should be a lot narrower than TTML 2020.
Glenn: We do need a requirements document initially.
Andreas: I also would be
available the complete week.
... One thing we could do is have a social dinner on Wednesday,
it is always a good
... setting for the next two days, and then use the complete
day of Thursday and Friday
... morning. Remembering Burlingame or the other f2f meetings
we mostly had
... 1.5 day complete meeting time where everybody was there, so
I think that should sufficient.
Nigel: I think we should target 1.5 days and if that's not enough, then look at why.
Glenn: I'm happy with Andreas's proposal.
Andreas: Important information
for those who don't know. At the same time, and a reason
... why we looked at these days, there will be a Production
Technology Seminar at EBU
... from Tuesday to Thursday, so if you need to join that
seminar that could help
... justify travel. Even if you don't join that, there will be
a lot of people at PTS, and it
... may be very helpful for catching up with someone joining
PTS.
Nigel: That's a good point, and I
should declare I may be involved in a demo at PTS,
... which is still under discussion, but if it goes ahead I'm
not sure what the impact is
... for my availability, on the other hand, it may be an
excellent discussion point feeding
... into our work on live contribution.
Cyril: I'm uncertain for that meeting, most likely I would be able to join.
Thierry: I think I should be able to join and should be available on those dates.
Nigel: Let's say this will go
ahead unless something comes along that knocks the plan
out.
... We have enough consensus to go ahead with this as a
plan.
... Thank you everyone.
Thierry: Apart from that January
f2f the only other one we plan is the next TPAC one,
... for 2019?
Nigel: Yes I think so, most
likely.
... It's unusual for us to have more than 2 f2fs per year, in
TTWG.
Nigel: Following on from that, I
think we have consensus to try to lock down requirements
... for future technical reports in 2019, by the end of
January.
... The implication there is that if additional requirements
come along later then our
... default position would be to defer them until a later
iteration.
... Does that work for everyone? Does anyone want a different
deadline for requirements?
Pierre: I think we should say by
the end of January, we should have solid accepted
... requirements, subject to minor tweaks. I would say we
should set a deadline of
... mid-December to submit initial requirements so that it
gives us a good month and
... a half to discuss and understand them and identify
outstanding issues. Maybe
... Dec 20th or Dec 13th?
Nigel: I would aim for our last meeting of the year, Dec 20th.
Glenn: I would propose a wiki
page that people can edit to create a requirements
... document.
Pierre: What about using Github and having people submit requirements.
Nigel: I think that would work,
but we don't have a repo for the group, and I think we're
... talking about generic requirements not necessarily tied to
any particular document.
Glenn: In the past I have suggested a group repo for policy things for the WG.
Nigel: Yes, and others have suggested it.
Glenn: Can we have a tt-requirements repo?
Nigel: I suggest a ttwg repo and add issues with future-requirements as a label.
Pierre: I would create a tt-reqs repo.
Glenn: That sounds good. And if you want another ttwg repo for policy stuff that would be good.
Nigel: That works for me, I'm easy either way.
Thierry: Should I create one or two?
Glenn: I suggest two, ttreqs and ttwg
Nigel: I like the dash, tt-reqs
Pierre: I prefer the dash
Thierry: Me too.
Nigel: There's the answer, Thierry, please create w3c/ttwg and w3c/tt-reqs
Thierry: Okay
Nigel: Back to the timeline, we
should have agreement by Feb 1, by the end of the F2F,
... so not strictly end of January.
... Then we need to partition the requirements into documents,
which will take a couple
... of weeks, and then have a period of spec editing and test
creation.
... I would like to move to a model where we write tests with
spec changes.
Thierry: We also need to consider
Charter revision. If we have new deliverables then
... it could be that we need to update our Charter. I discussed
that with Philippe yesterday
... and he said we should do that before May 2019.
Nigel: Yes, and we discussed that
at TPAC and there was general agreement to make
... a Charter revision targeting May 2019, which would
effectively extend the Charter
... duration from ending at May 2020 as now, to ending at May
2021.
... I think this will be achievable.
Thierry: Yes. We should start
working on this probably in February to get agreement
... by W3M, AC review (4 weeks) etc so we probably need a draft
Charter by end March 2019.
Nigel: Sounds achievable from this distance!
group: [discussion about potential f2f in TPAC 2019 and clashes with other industry events]
Nigel: In terms of rough
timescale, please could you put a timeline together for
us
... Thierry? Aim for FPWDs around April, and Rec around 1 year
from now.
Thierry: Yes I can do that. Why
did you pick a year from now, given we may have a Charter
... that goes beyond that?
Nigel: We haven't formally agreed
this but I feel that a smaller scope and shorter
... deadlines helps drive our behaviour and is more generally
useful to industry at large,
... even if that means another revision a year after
that.
... That's my view anyway.
Pierre: [also supports, apologies
scribe missed it]
... Thierry, the timeline really helped with our work this
year, it can't be underestimated.
Nigel: +1
Thierry: Thank you for letting me know that you appreciate it.
Pierre: It worked so well that we actually published in advance, which I never thought I'd say!
Thierry: If that worked well then
I'm ready to re-experience the same policy and make
... that kind of document again.
Nigel: Testing the water, does
anyone want us not to be deadline driven, and to
... wait until we're ready with a defined scope?
Glenn: I think deadline driven is
better, and if it doesn't make the cut then it gets
pushed
... out, and that's all.
Nigel: We have a tight timescale
for the first part of our year, and an action for how to
... proceed further.
Pierre: Nigel, if you could highlight the deadlines that would be helpful.
Nigel: When Thierry has made
tt-reqs repo I will create the two milestones on that
repo
... and send an email about them, i.e. 20th Dec for initial
requirements and 1st Feb for
... finalised requirements.
Thierry: I will let you know.
Nigel: Thank you.
Thierry: WebVTT is in CR, been
sitting there for some months now, and I'm not sure
... there has been much activity going on for that spec. A few
weeks ago David Singer
... said that there was a lack of implementation and probably
we could not fulfil the
... exit criteria and therefore he suggested we move the
document to a WG Note, and
... I think some people agreed to that if I remember rightly,
then on top of that Silvia
... said she was aware of implementations in other products
outside of browsers, so
... the question is to evaluate what kind of implementations
they are, polyfills, set top boxes
... etc and evaluate the level of implementation in those
products in order to fulfil
... the exit criteria.
... I want to add that Philippe said (I discussed with him
yesterday) that WebVTT would
... need to demonstrate implementability experience and get out
of CR before the
... re-charter. So that means if WebVTT does not have
sufficient implementation
... experience then it would not make it to the new
Charter.
... I need to ask Silvia more about Gary.
Nigel: So you're saying you want to spend some TTWG effort doing this?
Thierry: Yes, I will try to look
at those products and see who can put effort into a test
... suite and who will report on the implementations.
... That sounds quite difficult. We are now in November so it
is a hard goal to fulfil before
... April.
Andreas: Why should we start
something without the activity present here? As has
... been pointed out several times, David is co-chairing the
activity.
... He made a proposal, but I think it would be useful if he
joins the TTWG telco
... to discuss the next steps. Without doing that it is a bit
hard I think. I'm not sure how
... this is driven by the group, what you are doing Thierry. At
the moment I don't see a
... clear strategy how to proceed one way or the other. It
seems there are two directions
... to take this in and the Chair should be present to guide
this somehow.
group: [discussion off the record]
Glenn: I think the only way we
can proceed with this is to take a sense of the group
... and put a question on the agenda for a near future meeting,
like make a decision on
... whether to stop all work on WebVTT and publish as a Note
and take no further
... action or see if anyone comes out of the woodwork.
Nigel: Okay, thank you, noted.
Andreas: I agree we should not
start anything before it is clear that there is a
... realistic strategy that can be covered by the right
resource in the group.
Thierry: Just to add one more
thing, if you look back a year ago, David had motivated
... going to CR for different reasons, one that we had
fulfilled WR, and the second that
... we could get out of CR quickly because there are a lot of
implementations. Myself,
... I did a small test suite, and tested a lot of browsers, and
my conclusion that I sent
... to Philippe is that less than a third of the functionality
was actually implemented, so
... I was very sceptical about the level of implementation we
can expect. I haven't tested
... for a year, I don't know if the browsers are better. I
think the expectation to exit CR
... was high from David but it hasn't happened since then.
Andreas: You know there are web
platform tests for WebVTT, Apple spent some effort
... doing that, and they're automated so you can see the
coverage for those tests. I will
... find the link.
Thierry: Please could you resend
the link?
... Also how complete is the test suite?
Andreas: I will send you the link, yes.
Thierry: Thank you.
Nigel: Apologies I didn't ask for AOB at the head of the meeting. Is there any?
group: [silence]
Nigel: Okay that's a no. Thank
you everyone, we'll meet same time next week as usual.
... We've hit the end of our agenda! [adjourns meeting]