07:36:21 RRSAgent has joined #tt 07:36:21 logging to https://www.w3.org/2019/02/01-tt-irc 07:36:23 RRSAgent, make logs public 07:36:23 Zakim has joined #tt 07:36:25 Meeting: Timed Text Working Group Teleconference 07:36:25 Date: 01 February 2019 07:36:33 Log: https://www.w3.org/2019/02/01-tt-irc 07:36:57 Agenda: https://www.w3.org/wiki/TimedText/F2F-jan-2019#Day_2_.2808:30-13:30.29 07:37:09 scribe: nigel 07:38:20 Present: Andreas, Pierre, Thierry, Glenn, Matt, Marco_Slik, Frans 07:38:33 Chair: Nigel 07:39:43 Present+ Gary 07:40:19 Topic: This meeting 07:40:46 s/This meeting/Introductions 07:41:08 Andreas: Welcome everyone to this joint meeting of the W3C Timed Text Working Group and EBU Timed 07:41:22 .. Text groups. 07:41:42 .. I chair the EBU group, and Nigel is a chair of both of the groups. 07:42:07 Nigel: Do we all know each other? 07:42:29 Andreas: We mostly met yesterday but introductions could be useful for some people. 07:42:51 Marco: I'm Marco Slik, an R&D engineer at NPO in the Netherlands involved in the very broad spectrum 07:43:29 .. of playout distribution and access services, I joined the EBU group a few years ago. 07:44:11 MattS has joined #tt 07:48:16 Gary: Hi, I work at Brightcove, we do online video with video.js and the web player and I focus on WebVTT 07:48:27 Thierry: Thierry Michel, W3C team contact for this WG 07:49:35 Nigel: Just an admin statement for me, which is that as a W3C WG meeting any IPR contributed here 07:49:52 .. needs to be cleared. TTWG members have already made this commitment, if any non-TTWG members 07:50:10 .. contribute any substantive material that ends up in a W3C Recommendation track document then as 07:50:22 .. Chair I will need to get a similar commitment from the contributor. 07:50:33 .. That's the formality over, in terms of IPR! 07:50:58 .. Can I check everyone is aware of IRC and the minuting of this meeting? 07:51:17 Andreas: Yes, I will send the links around too. 07:51:26 Marco has joined #tt 07:52:39 Nigel: Just to let everyone know that this meeting will be scribed on IRC and that the log will be 07:52:55 .. turned into public-visible minutes after the meeting. If you do not wish something to be minuted 07:53:02 .. please tell me before you say it! 07:53:08 Topic: This meeting 07:53:31 Andreas: One of the reasons we meet together today is the shared interest in live TTML. 07:53:46 .. We had a discussion at the TPAC meeting in Lyon a few months ago and also some other discussions 07:53:55 .. in the EBU group about this. 07:55:23 .. There was a discussion of the submission of EBU-TT Live to W3C. At TPAC we decided we needed 07:55:38 .. more information about the plans of the groups regarding live and standards activities. 07:55:49 .. So we thought this meeting would be a perfect opportunity to discuss this. 07:55:56 .. The main part will be dedicated to this topic. 07:56:11 .. By introduction we have some example from operation, Nigel from BBC, and the open source 07:56:18 .. activity of the EBU-TT Live Interoperability Toolkit. 07:56:32 .. Matt from Red Bee, and Marco from NPO and I will bring in requirements from some German 07:56:35 .. broadcasters. 07:56:42 .. After that we will look at the live standards activity. 07:56:50 .. Also as we're here today we can widen the scope a little bit. 07:57:05 .. I talked to people before. My interest would be to check how much we can bring TTWG and EBU TT 07:57:18 .. activities together and doing more work in W3C. 07:57:24 .. [missed a bit] 07:57:44 .. We have concrete examples of multiRowAlign and linePadding. 07:57:56 .. The order is not fixed yet, we have a list of topics on the wiki page. 07:58:04 .. We can discuss where to start. 07:59:06 Nigel: Thanks for that, as you have said we have a list of topics on the wiki page. 08:02:27 .. Looking at the schedule, what should we look at first? 08:02:40 Andreas: Let's begin concrete with EBU extensions and then dive into live. 08:02:49 .. Then come back to cooperation and collaboration of the groups at the end of the meeting. 08:04:34 Topic: EBU Extensions to TTML 08:04:50 Andreas: Some information I shared 08:05:32 -> [pointer to Andreas summary mail] Andreas's summary text 08:05:55 Andreas: The main question is if the two vocabulary items ebutts:multiRowAlign and ebutts:linePadding 08:07:04 .. If it makes standards work of W3C easier we would be able to allow them to be maintained in the TTWG. 08:07:13 .. If there's interest in W3C group to do this. 08:07:22 .. Otherwise we can keep it in the EBU TT group scope. 08:07:37 .. I sent an email to the EBU reflector making a proposal, and have had no objections to that proposal. 08:08:01 .. From whatever date, multiRowAlign and linePadding are maintained and at the end controlled no longer 08:08:33 .. by EBU but by W3C. EBU will not make any changes to them. 08:08:56 .. If there is another EBU spec then it can reference any updated definition in a W3C spec. 08:09:14 .. This allows easier maintenance and adoption of bug fixes found during W3C activities. 08:09:24 .. The general idea is to update the items for clarification and bug fixing. 08:09:36 .. If completely new requirements come up that are not satisfied by them then it may be better to add 08:09:51 .. two completely new items in the TTML namespace. If for some reasons semantics change then it is in 08:10:04 .. the interests of the EBU group that they are backward compatible with the existing EBU definitions. 08:10:27 .. If W3C has control then they maintain it and it is their decision process how to deal with updates. 08:10:54 .. We currently have at least 4 members who are in both groups then I do not see any conflict. 08:11:00 Matt: Is there any precedence for this? 08:11:05 Frans: I'm not aware of this exact case. 08:11:19 Glenn: When you say hand over control are you assuming a namespace change? 08:11:23 Andreas: No 08:11:41 Glenn: The proposal is a syntactic transfer but cede control to the W3C of that subset of the EBU owned 08:11:42 .. namespace? 08:11:45 Andreas: Yes 08:12:05 .. Pierre as editor of IMSC, the question is if there is any benefit. I think it is clear it would be maintained 08:12:06 .. in IMSC scope. 08:12:19 Pierre: There's always a benefit in having a single forum to address issues. 08:12:37 Glenn: If the formal definition moves to IMSC, would it be feasible to define, say in TTML3, two new 08:12:45 .. attributes of the same name but in the TTML namespace? 08:12:53 Pierre: To me that's a separate issue. 08:12:59 Glenn: Well they're both in W3C control 08:13:03 Pierre: That's true today 08:13:09 Matt: Would they be equivalents? 08:13:20 Glenn: I've objected to including foreign namespaces in TTML in the past. 08:13:36 .. That's not true for IMSC which is a profile that adds vocabulary from other places like EBU-TT. 08:13:50 .. That was completely appropriate in IMSC, but it has never been the case that TTML refers to foreign 08:14:03 .. namespaces. If we do this then we should have a plan or intent to bring them into the TTML style 08:14:09 .. namespace and define them equivalently. 08:14:17 Pierre: That's orthogonal, we could do that today. 08:14:29 Glenn: If you think that's possible, then that's okay. 08:14:48 Andreas: Your proposal is to duplicate semantics but give it a different name or namespace? 08:15:09 Glenn: 1. Move formal definition into IMSC, same namespace, words etc so it is consistently defined. 08:15:22 .. 2. Define the same names and semantics in a TTML namespace. At that point the IMSC spec could be 08:15:38 .. updated to refer to the TTML namespace semantics if it wants to and also say it is available in the EBU 08:15:39 .. namespace. 08:15:56 Andreas: This has been discussed in the past and EBU has said that is not the intent to duplicate existing 08:16:10 .. vocabulary items, and that duplication makes no sense. Personally I think that is the best strategy. 08:16:24 .. We use the EBU vocabulary items because they are established, implemented and we don't want to 08:16:34 .. make other implementations have to change to a new vocabulary with no need. 08:16:51 .. This is formally not needed but it goes together. If the overall intent is to duplicate the EBU namespace 08:17:08 .. items without adding new functionality that would not really justify bringing over the control of the 08:17:19 .. EBU namespace items. We had this discussion in the past and the position has not changed. 08:17:37 Glenn: We have to recognise that IMSC and TTML are different and have different conventions. 08:17:53 .. We have followed different restrictions. As a primary language definition it does not reference any 08:18:07 .. foreign namespaces, just the core XML namespaces and those defined in TTML itself. 08:18:47 .. Other than this potentially we have never discussed a proposal or accepted one to refer to foreign namespace. 08:18:59 Pierre: I don't see why we need it. 08:19:17 .. W3C could decide today to create a duplicate attribute. We've had that discussion. I don't see what is different. 08:19:35 Glenn: Bringing them in to IMSC will not satisfy requirements for TTML that are not IMSC users. 08:19:44 .. Everything is in the TT namespaces. 08:19:50 Pierre: We can have that discussion (again). 08:20:18 Glenn: I have no objection to making use of the EBU technology. It is great, proven, deployed, and I don't 08:20:26 .. want to seem like I'm denigrating EBU in this regard. 08:20:40 .. As Editor of the primary core language definition I have to stand by certain principles of language 08:20:49 .. consistency and this is one I'm going to insist on. 08:21:03 Andreas: Possibly it is best to follow Pierre's proposal and concentrate on what is on the table. 08:21:28 .. This would be to hand over control of the items multiRowAlign and linePadding only into W3C for 08:21:32 tmichel has joined #tt 08:21:32 .. adoption by IMSC and nothing else. 08:21:40 .. What is the opinion of the other members present? 08:21:52 Matt: I think it seems sensible. The one question for me is the overall strategy and context? 08:21:56 Frans: Pragmatism 08:22:11 Matt: It doesn't make sense to have multiple definitions of the same thing and then the community would 08:22:15 .. need to do the same work twice. 08:22:30 .. We would like to contribute to the biggest circle in the venn diagram unless there's a proposal that is 08:22:45 .. hyper-specific. We would like to break down the notion that captions and subtitles are different from 08:22:56 .. country to country because in my experience they are not. Interoperability is the goal. 08:23:13 Frans: I totally agree, this makes sense and we should be pragmatic not thinking about not invented here 08:23:14 .. concerns. 08:23:24 Andreas: I see nodding from Marco, no objection from W3C side. 08:23:49 .. I will share the proposal from the EBU with the Timed Text group. 08:24:11 Pierre: I think a liaison is needed, and an issue on IMSC to adopt in the next version. 08:25:02 Nigel: I'm not sure if a liaison is needed. 08:25:17 Pierre: For future generations a standalone piece of paper that explains what happened would be useful. 08:25:30 Andreas: I can make a proposal offline and check it with both groups to go forward. 08:25:34 Nigel: That is okay for me too. 08:25:50 Topic: Overview of EBU standards 08:26:13 Andreas: [shows list of EBU specs] 08:26:41 .. EBU-TT Part 1 v1.2, the base of every standard we published, intended originally for exchange and archive, 08:26:52 .. as the successor to STL. 08:27:01 .. Not in TTML2: linePadding, multiRowAlign 08:27:23 .. Not in IMSC: smpte, clock timebase, markerMode, clockMode, cell length metric except for linePadding 08:28:05 .. EBu-TT-D, same scope as IMSC, a subset of IMSC. Includes multiRowAlign and linePadding. 08:28:25 .. EBU-TT Live, subtitle contribution over IP. As well as multiRowAlign and linePadding, there are four 08:28:47 .. attributes not in TTML2 or in IMSC, sequenceIdentifier, sequenceNumber, authorsGroupIdentifier, 08:28:52 .. authorsGroupControlToken. 08:29:07 .. EBU-TT Part M is definition of metadata elements, no compatibility issue because TTML and IMSC allow 08:29:10 .. adding metadata. 08:29:17 .. Also we have some complementary documents. 08:29:29 .. A recommendation how to map EBU STL to EBU-TT Part 1. 08:29:40 .. A recommendation for carrying EBU-TT-D in ISO BMFF. 08:30:05 .. A carriage spec for carrying EBU-TT Live over WebSocket. 08:30:08 .. 08:30:21 .. A question I have is for not just EBU-TT Live, but also part 1 and EBU-TT-D how they could converge 08:30:33 .. with the TTML specs. Later we have an EBU group meeting, this will be one part of the discussion there. 08:30:50 .. Looking at the minimal part that is not inside IMSC or TTML I see some option really to possibly 08:31:07 .. make use of some W3C specs to satisfy the use case we originally thought of with part 1 and Live. 08:31:18 .. EBU-TT-D is already solved by IMSC, EBU-TT-D is just more restricted. 08:31:49 Glenn: The idea is to identify areas of difference as you have summarised, and then find ways to... 08:32:04 .. I guess I'm not clear on the next step - update the EBU specs? Or some action on W3C side? 08:32:17 Andreas: The background is the situation that if you go to the industry and ask about information about 08:32:31 .. TTML they say there are so many profiles they don't know which ones to support. They don't implement 08:32:44 .. a complete set. That's not a good situation, so I think it would help to limit the set of standards that 08:32:57 .. needs to be implemented, and I really like simple solutions so in my simplified view, for example for 08:33:12 .. part 1 we could say for production and exchange, just use IMSC, but then check if everything in IMSC 08:33:28 .. now satisfies this use case, and if not, make an addition or some other change so that, out there, where 08:33:40 .. we need implementation, people know they just need to implement IMSC. 08:33:53 Glenn: Thinking aloud, I'm wondering if part of the problem with all these profiles is that very few clients 08:34:08 .. if any actually do the profile processing that is defined by TTML in the sense that it actually verifies 08:34:21 .. if the profile asks for features to be supported and acts accordingly if they are not. 08:34:36 .. I felt always bad about the history of the EBU's adoption of TTML when it ruled out use of the profile 08:34:49 .. system which I thought then and still think is a mistake because it removes the ability of the client to 08:35:05 .. refer to the author defined profile information. I'm not suggesting anything, but it may be that the fact 08:35:35 .. that very few clients use the profile is part of the problem. 08:35:45 Andreas: Try to look forward not backward. 08:36:41 Glenn: I agree. 08:37:08 Nigel: Chicken and egg problem - if profile adoption is not there then it is hard to specify it, and TTML 08:37:21 .. implementation is already big enough without including profiles. 08:37:52 Andreas: Question for Pierre, do you see a path to adding EBU-TT Part 1 syntax into IMSC if there's a gap? 08:38:20 Pierre: We can look at it, it is not worth creating another flavour/layer/profile but if they are useful 08:38:37 .. in production only but not distribution then maybe there is genuinely a need for another flavour. 08:38:55 Frans: There has been little drive to change the production side, more the distribution side. 08:39:00 .. So EBU-TT has not been well adopted. 08:39:29 Matt: We've made a lot of EBU-TT output, everything for BBC since 2014. We probably could derive some 08:39:38 .. useful stats on the number of EBU-TT documents. 08:39:53 .. Ofcom has recently published a statement about the extension of accessibility regulation to online 08:40:04 .. video platforms, which included something about standards support. There was an attempt to try to 08:40:24 .. persuade the regulator to add guidance or stronger to direct content providers to use particular formats. 08:40:43 .. We have one client for whom we make 13 or 14 different variants of the same data. That's driven by 08:40:57 .. probably no good reason, but the proliferation has caused fogginess. Anything we can do to reduce 08:41:21 .. that will be very valid and valuable. If you read that statement, [missed a bit] those are not small 08:41:35 .. amounts of money, having one format that could be propagated to every platform would be very 08:41:37 .. useful. 08:41:59 Andreas: Useful comments. From my experience IMSC for example [missed a bit] 08:42:19 .. but the value of having one format overweights possibly the extra work for features that may not be 08:42:33 .. needed. Most of the things we leave out are not really a problem in the implementation. It is more the 08:42:51 .. parts we brought in, with multiRowAlign, lineGap etc are the tricky parts. 08:43:05 .. To actively give the message that you need to implement full IMSC coming from different standards 08:43:20 .. organisations would definitely help I think. One of the main questions we can look at already for 08:43:37 .. IMSC is timecode. We had discussions with lots of people, lots of stakeholders are not yet ready to 08:43:40 .. go away from timecode. 08:43:55 Pierre: And a lot of them use it badly. We really have to understand the use cases extremely well. 08:44:11 .. In the modern world timecode will not work 99.99% of the time with component based media. 08:44:20 Frans: I can only agree it must be use case driven. 08:44:31 .. That's the most important for production. 08:45:04 Marco: When you want to transition you have to support some things... [missed a bit] 08:45:11 Pierre: It will not work with online media. 08:45:28 Marco: I will not manage to get away from smpte timecode in 3 years, but we could maybe start the timecode 08:45:32 .. clock at zero for example. 08:45:47 Pierre: I don't think saying timecode can not or must be used is the answer, it's a lot more nuanced. 08:46:18 Andreas: I do not think we can say we see a better future and will not help you now. 08:46:28 .. For German broadcasters we need an incentive to change from STL. 08:46:39 .. We thought we did that with EBU-TT but they did not use it. 08:46:54 Frans: When we started the work the premise was that STL can not do the things we want but in 08:47:01 .. production people have not hit that wall yet. 08:47:18 Matt: Yes, we have not hit that inflection point. We're getting more foreign languages, like Mandarin. 08:47:35 .. We can't do live captioning in Mandarin, in 608 or Teletext, but we need an answer before people 08:47:41 .. invent something that won't work. 08:47:46 Glenn: A character coding issue? 08:47:58 Matt: Yes but the broadcast standards don't support those characters. 08:48:16 Pierre: Contribution of HD single language content is a solved problem. We're not competing with ATSC or 608. 08:48:24 .. We're talking about worldwide online distribution of content. 08:48:36 Matt: Precisely. We're working with an online entity that has no SDI platform. 08:49:06 Andreas: That's a good start into the discussion, I propose we move over. 08:49:19 Pierre: On that topic, since we're all together, if we are serious about trying to rationalise this it would 08:49:32 .. probably be a good idea to set aside a day at a workshop to really get to the bottom of it, and get 08:49:45 .. people to tell us what they are doing and want to do otherwise we will make a wrong decision. 08:50:03 Frans: We tried to do this a number of years ago for EBU-TT Live. 08:50:13 Pierre: For instance EBU-TT Part 1, who are the target users? 08:50:19 Andreas: Everyone who uses STL. 08:50:31 Matt: I can collate data from most UK broadcasters. 08:50:47 Frans: I do think there is point to verifying proposed pain points with users. 08:51:06 Andreas: From the experience of the live workshop it was a bit chaotic and was hard to bring together. 08:51:19 .. It was good at that time, but as you say everyone goes to their domain and community and we come 08:51:25 .. back maybe in the same kind of circle. 08:51:34 Pierre: Next opportunity is maybe IBC. 08:52:00 .. It would be awesome to end up with a single format across the entire chain, not for old applications. 08:52:13 Andreas: yes and if we are committed I'm sure we will get others onboard. 08:52:23 Matt: Clients ask us how to give flesh to the ecosystem 08:52:29 Frans: We need to give a roadmap 08:52:36 Matt: And state the benefits. 08:54:25 Nigel: That Live workshop was in the same room as this meeting in 2012, and one of the reason it was 08:54:43 .. chaotic was that people wanted to address not just the workflow we had in scope but at least one step 08:54:49 .. further, like speech to text engines. 08:55:02 Frans: I agree, we need to focus on the use cases. 08:55:16 Topic: Live subtitle contribution 09:12:28 nigel: [describes EBU-TT Live and the Live Interoperability Toolkit] - Frans took notes. 09:12:39 Matt: Background to fit into that. 09:12:42 .. [shows slides] 09:13:03 .. We're a subtitle vendor, and a few years ago wanted to replace our live captioning platform. We were 09:13:16 .. surprised at the lack of forwards thinking in the market. I was in this group already at that point and 09:13:29 .. could see that the world would change and Teletext would not work. 09:13:46 .. We built our own java based captioning tool called Subito. 09:13:53 .. Effectively internally it makes TTML. 09:14:19 .. Can output Teletext, Nufor, 608, Cavena, EBU-TT Live, and can do those simultaneously, applying 09:14:24 .. the constraints in real time. 09:14:57 .. We did our first presentation at PTS 2 years ago, and did some work using the LIT. We had a basic but 09:15:07 .. brittle proof of concept. More recently using for our customers. 09:15:38 .. Development challenges, managing pre-conceptions of HTML and XML ignoring good EBU documentation 09:15:58 .. ignoring format details because of lack of understanding of the use case, so deviating from the spec. 09:16:10 .. Partly caused by lack of reference examples and material. 09:16:38 .. Bad habits like using line breaks for positioning. 09:16:50 .. Ignoring test materials that are free like the Interop Toolkit. 09:17:11 .. Challenges about reformatting, we focused on conveying the intent of the captioner to the stream. 09:17:26 .. But how to cope if presentation format is a different aspect or applies other constraints? 09:17:42 .. In the implementation side we didn't think enough about that. No practical constraints, but need to 09:17:48 .. avoid developers making inappropriate solutions. 09:18:31 .. We created a multichannel Distribution Node. Originally we required consumers to connect in, what we now 09:18:55 .. have is scalable and supports multiple destinations. 09:19:08 .. Testing is difficult, need a 24/7 delivery destination. 09:19:25 .. Security: not an issue with 608 or Nufor, wide open or limited in format. 09:19:40 .. We've implemented Auth0 with security based on IPv4 lockdown approach. 09:19:58 .. Haven't implemented handover functions, the idea that you may have more than one source of 09:20:12 .. caption documents, and we have a model in Part 3 for passing over control seamlessly so everyone 09:20:27 .. knows who is in control and where their data is going. Needs more ecosystem, lacking at the moment 09:20:32 .. for testing and demonstration. 09:21:15 .. "flying hours" - if we have used libraries with memory leaks etc then eventually things will go wrong. 09:21:32 .. Until we have solid real world use we can't be 100% sure it is robust. 09:21:55 .. Used for Department of Parliamentary Services, Australia with a web feed. 09:22:06 .. Extended proof of concept, due to launch imminently. 09:22:35 .. Second is "Intersub", real time transcript service. Currently Newfor, plan to migrate to Part 3, which 09:22:49 .. will simplify the stack and remove newfor handling deduplication code. 09:23:21 Andreas: Really good, thank you, very interesting! 09:23:27 .. Next up, Marco. 09:23:57 Frans has joined #tt 09:25:03 Marco: [trouble presenting] 09:25:10 Andreas: I will take over and we come back to Marco. 09:25:33 .. Our broadcasters are fine most of the time. They look for new solutions if current tech cannot solve 09:25:36 .. their use cases. 09:25:52 .. One problem in the past is live streaming of broadcast programmes with closed captions, not burned in, 09:25:55 .. on the distribution channel. 09:26:09 .. All of the chain is standardised especially at the end. There are stable and good standards to package 09:26:21 .. EBU-TT-D and IMSC into MP4 and deliver it with DASH and HLS. 09:26:39 .. To encourage implementation we did a demo that has been online for 1 or 2 years where we use the 09:26:55 .. live broadcast signal and take out the subtitles and bring it into IMSC and deliver it over HLS and DASH. 09:27:14 .. [shows live Bavarian broadcaster BR's output] 09:27:21 .. Teletext subtitles translated into IMSC. 09:27:50 .. How it works: for the encoding and packaging, receive SDI with embedded teletext subtitles in the VANC. 09:28:07 .. They decode it and then translate it to TTML and package it in MP4 for the client. That works. 09:28:25 .. But what if you have a non-broadcast workflow, for an online only platform with no broadcast chain. 09:28:41 .. And our broadcasters say they have a couple of internet-only live events and they do not want to buy 09:28:58 .. whole broadcast systems for these events to subtitle them. One way it could be done is that at the 09:29:17 .. packaging side you receive the video and audio together and synchronise it and deliver as MP4 to the client. 09:29:32 .. The scenario we would like to solve is to use EBU-TT Live for the contribution to the encoding layer. 09:29:45 .. Also we would like to get people together like we did in the past with this CMAF/DASH demo. 09:29:56 .. The challenge we have at the moment is to find a packager and encoder that would implement 09:30:04 .. EBU-TT Live and the synchronising mechanism. 09:30:21 .. It would also be possible to use a legacy format like Newfor and transmit teletext information. That is 09:30:35 s/That is 09:30:50 Matt: Newfor is not an open standard. Everyone who has a copy of it has inherited it rather than been 09:30:53 .. able to obtain it! 09:31:03 Andreas: And all of them use a different variation of this protocol. 09:31:07 Pierre: Who created Newfor? 09:31:28 Matt: Sysmedia, a guy called Andrew Lambourne who now works at the University of Sheffield Hallam I think. 09:31:42 .. It's a simple serial style wrapper around the core Teletext page instruction, with a session, flow management, 09:31:50 .. and wraps up what literally should be on the screen. 09:32:10 Andreas: What we see as a chance is the next Olympics. We have heard they want to offer much more 09:32:23 .. online than on broadcast, and they need to provide captions. That's the goal and we are really looking 09:32:29 .. for a good working solution here. 09:32:58 Matt: We did some work with Channel 4 in the UK, who broadcast the paralympics. They wanted to make 09:33:17 .. it all accessible online and the only solution was to hire a crate of kit from the US, go to SDI and back 09:33:34 .. out again, and doing that all cost quite a lot of money. The requirements really do exist. 09:33:46 Andreas: Marco, can we hand over to you? 09:33:54 rrsagent, make minutes 09:33:54 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2019/02/01-tt-minutes.html nigel 09:34:04 Marco: [presents slides] 09:34:09 .. [Status subtitle market] 09:34:34 .. Global overview of what you all said, to make clear the Europe subtitle volume is extensive. 09:34:53 .. Most countries have regulation with additional European regulation that will probably end up with 09:35:12 .. having 100% hearing impaired subtitling. About 50% of Europe uses translation subtitles as well. 09:35:32 Pierre: Checking my assumption, 5 years ago a lot of subtitling for translation but there is no [missed] 09:35:37 Frans: Different per country 09:35:50 Marco: The view is that accessibility needs to be at a higher level. 09:36:01 Frans: Increasing pressure, depends how far people can go because of money. 09:36:11 Pierre: On the accessibility standpoint, what is the coverage in Europe? 09:36:28 Frans: Subtitling only (captioning), 100% in NW Europe. 09:36:37 Marco: 95% on all content. 09:36:50 Matt: Many countries it is only the public service broadcaster. 09:37:07 Andreas: In Germany main channels 100%, major public ones, commercial ones down to 20%. 09:37:16 Marco: Will change with new EU regs. 09:37:20 Frans: Not sure timing 09:37:29 Matt: Equivalent of the US regs 09:37:38 Pierre: Public and commercial broadcasters? 09:37:42 Frans: Not equal 09:37:53 Andreas: Media industry requirements not so strict. 09:38:10 Matt: Strange things - some countries have more stringent regs because of their governments but 09:38:16 .. tech affects ability to deliver. 09:38:28 Pierre: Statement that penetration will increase is because of regulation or cost? 09:38:33 Marco: Regulation mainly. 09:38:43 group: [everyone wants to see data on that!] 09:39:16 Marco: On the translating part, a lot of countries have burned in subtitles too. 09:39:31 .. Differs between countries, in Netherlands it is all foreign language. 09:39:38 .. [Subtitle market status] 09:39:45 .. Shift from linear broadcast to on-demand and OTT. 09:39:55 .. New requirement for different devices not knowing Teletext. 09:40:14 .. Teletext used in broadcast facilities, page 888 for the viewer, being phased out. 09:40:24 .. Equipment is end of life, end of support, no new companies offering solutions. 09:40:46 .. Typically something I run into, no Teletext support in encoders. 09:41:01 .. Current support only goes to 7 lines, I need 15 or 16! 09:41:21 .. Current tech support is cut off but IP protocols not there - we really need to do something new. 09:41:30 .. New players on the market, mainly internet startups. 09:41:43 .. Know a lot about new world interfaces. 09:41:51 .. Need standardisation to get this streamlined. 09:42:06 .. Increasing demand for good access services and customisation on client side, so not sending 09:42:22 .. a rendered subtitle image but sending text so the front ends can customise. 09:42:29 Zakim has left #tt 09:42:33 .. New volumes - non-audio videos without subtitles 09:42:38 Zakim has joined #tt 09:42:55 .. Looking at new functionality for web players, extra metadata etc. 09:43:03 .. [EBU-TT as replacement] 09:43:28 .. File based, not for today. Teletext based - all proprietary, being phased out. 09:43:44 .. [Live transport in the chain] - picture from EBU spec, slightly modified. 09:43:59 .. Live part from authoring facility to playout, then playout to encoding. 09:44:12 .. EBU-TT Live -> EBU-TT-D/IMSC for player rendering and DVB 09:44:20 .. [NPO's live subtitle chain] 09:44:41 .. Live subtitle department done with one editor for simple programmes, and 3 editors for more complex 09:45:00 .. talking heads programmes, with respeaking, correcting and cueing, with video delays. Very demanding 09:45:11 .. for respeaking, so change editor roles during the programme. 09:45:23 .. Also trying to do automated subtitling, really a challenge at the moment. 09:45:36 .. Then playout, file based with STL and Cavena at the moment, need to go real time to encoder. 09:45:52 .. As Andreas said, Newfor and Teletext are the old world. Looking toward having a new world approach 09:46:03 .. where styling and formatting are equal and extendable through all devices. 09:46:22 .. So we want block based subtitling, handover between editors, time relationship is SMPTE based but 09:46:44 .. not always 'do it now' but could be late file delivery with overlaid live subtitles, then ingested during 09:46:51 .. playout for replay later. 09:47:10 .. Looking at media timecode in next generation which should last at least 3 years. 09:47:18 .. Need to fan out to multiple destinations. 09:47:36 .. Timebase processing (delay compensation) 09:47:46 .. Lowest delay NOW (remote capability) is needed 09:47:51 .. Same for file based playout. 09:48:10 .. SMPTE timecode, timebase correction, fan out to multiple destinations, timed metadata. 09:48:33 .. A TTML based approach really important for timed metadata. 09:48:58 .. In encoder, fan-in from multiple sources, then synchronise ABR and DVN stream transport, 09:49:05 .. subtitles and timed user metadata, 09:49:11 .. join other worlds like HbbTV. 09:49:24 .. [Needed] Widest standardization as possible. 09:49:37 .. Currently have momentum to get rid of old world possibly, but tools not available for new world yet. 09:49:40 .. Really frustrating. 09:49:54 .. Good to mention need for multiple languages including right to left. We have a huge amount of Arabic 09:49:57 .. in Holland. 09:50:18 .. Near real-time in parallel to SMPTE 2110 ideally in future, encapsulated in distribution for client renderers. 09:50:34 .. I hope to have some support for aligning positioning especially for converting from Teletext to new world. 09:50:43 .. EBU-TT Part 2 includes some guidance. 09:50:53 .. Would like to do the translation as early as possible in the chain. 09:51:08 Andreas: Thank you for that honest but realistic view of what is happening and what the challenges are. 09:51:26 .. Propose a break now for 15 minutes maximum. 09:51:31 .. Return at 11:05. 09:52:13 Nigel: Thank you for those presentations - they were really great! 09:52:19 rrsagent, make minutes 09:52:19 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2019/02/01-tt-minutes.html nigel 10:11:00 .. [return from break] 10:11:18 Andreas: Can we start with a summary from yesterday? 10:11:26 Nigel: Not sure exactly what you're referring to? 10:11:44 Andreas: Yesterday it came up what could be done with EBU-TT Live and how to handle it in W3C. 10:12:14 .. TTWG will have a new kind of layout a bit like CSS, where some functionality is taken out of the main 10:12:28 .. specification and put into modules. This opens up a more flexible approach to address current 10:12:38 .. requirements and parallelise activities so they do not block each other. 10:12:51 .. In this context one of the proposals was to take the functionality and possibly the vocabulary of 10:13:07 .. EBU-TT Live in a module published by W3C which then can be used by any profile of TTML, could be 10:13:11 .. EBU-TT, IMSC or whatever. 10:13:20 .. From my impression that's where it ended, it's a feasible approach. 10:13:36 .. There are other questions how it could look at the end and the mechanics e.g. a submission from EBU 10:13:56 .. as a W3C member. It is a feasible approach. 10:14:08 Glenn: Clarifying my thinking on modularisation approach and how it is not exactly like CSS. 10:14:21 .. In CSS they carved up the existing functionality of CSS2 into pieces and called them modules. 10:14:37 .. I'm not assuming and would oppose doing the same thing here with TTML3 because there are so many 10:14:50 .. interlinked semantics between the different components and it would create quite a bit of effort to 10:15:04 .. carve it into pieces and I don't see any advantage in evolution because it is fairly stable. 10:15:19 .. What I see happening is in the context of TTML3 creating a new framework for modules to allow 10:15:28 .. new functionality to exist that is not in TTML2. 10:15:40 .. To the extent that we can put it into different module documents proceed on that basis. 10:15:54 .. It may turn out that there are some substantive changes not in TTML2 2nd Ed that are appropriate 10:16:13 .. for making in the core of TTML3 that are not in modules, but to the extent that we don't separate 10:16:32 .. functionality then that would be the best approach, allowing parallelisation of work and editorial activities. 10:16:42 .. Especially for new well identified groups of functionality such as live. 10:16:54 .. Just communicating my understanding because that's what I'm going to operate on. 10:17:01 .. If people differ from that I'd like to hear about it. 10:17:14 Andreas: I think it would work well for this use case, and it would also be good to discuss why we have 10:17:31 .. the discussion. Right now EBU-TT Live is complete and is out there. What are the benefits of bringing 10:17:34 .. into W3C? 10:17:52 .. 1. To encourage vendor support, by having a global solution. 10:18:10 .. 2. I know there are ideas and requests for updates of functionality. Here it is better to do it in one 10:18:21 .. group rather than separate groups. 10:18:39 Nigel: Add one more, which is it would allow us to make a thing like IMSC Live, which currently seems to 10:18:58 .. be excluded by EBU-TT Live even though in principle it is possible to make IMSC-conformant EBU-TT Live 10:19:14 .. documents, I don't think that seems obvious to the wider world. 10:19:37 .. Also there are some useful constructs permitted in IMSC that are excluded by EBU-TT Live. 10:19:55 Andreas: That's right, and you also point to an important issue that EBU-TT Live is first a description 10:20:12 .. of how a live TTML workflow should look, with some additional syntax and semantics. 10:20:28 .. It is bound to EBU-TT syntax definition, so limited to what is in EBU-TT Part 1. 10:21:02 Marco: Two main topics: The transport mechanism and the syntax of the documents. 10:21:05 Andreas: Right. 10:21:22 Nigel: In the EBU specs we've tackled them as separable things. 10:21:48 Andreas: So 3 things: Workflow, Carriage mechanisms, and the payload. 10:22:47 Marco: What I meant was the transport and how we encapsulate the handshake in mechanisms. 10:23:06 Andreas: There are clear benefits also in the EBU group, and everyone involved in standardising EBU-TT Live 10:23:12 .. is convinced of the usefulness here. 10:23:29 .. It would be useful to hear from others in TTWG, Pierre, Glenn. 10:23:45 Pierre: Yes, I don't have a very strong opinion about applying only to IMSC or to TTML as a module, I'm 10:23:51 .. happy either way, whichever works best. 10:24:01 .. I think it would be good to apply to IMSC somehow if it is possible. 10:24:20 .. Last time I saw it it was merely a couple of additional attributes with no impact on visual presentation. 10:24:30 .. The only feedback on the document that I have already shared is it is too long. 10:24:44 .. Otherwise it seems like a good idea. I like the idea of trying to focus development on the technical 10:24:57 .. specifications in a single place. The requirements can come from other groups. 10:25:03 group: [general agreement] 10:25:11 Frans: I totally agree, that is the main point. 10:25:24 .. A second point is ease of marketing, branding, so considering a complete IMSC based future could be 10:25:39 .. very attractive as the main thing people know about. We should embrace the best candidate we have 10:25:49 .. and it is IMSC, that gives us the biggest chance of adoption. 10:26:15 Pierre: Specifically on EBU-TT Live and authoring, with SMPTE 2110 and the brave new world, it would be 10:26:32 .. really good for this community to help folks pick the right technology, or someone will pick SMPTE-TT 10:26:37 .. and say that's what we're doing now. 10:26:52 .. My feedback to Nigel is the more we can do to narrow what goes over 2110 the better otherwise we 10:27:07 .. will have disappointment, otherwise someone will implement TTML over 2110 and it won't work 10:27:11 .. between vendors. 10:27:40 Matt: I would like to see removal of specific protocols for individual markets, in favour of global ones 10:27:53 .. To avoid lossy transcode, reworking, and support new languages. 10:28:15 .. I've had conversations about Punjabi, Hindi, Mandarin, Cantonese (bizarrely), Arabic, they all need some 10:28:21 .. kind of kludge. 10:28:41 Pierre: Can we talk about 2110, how can we contribute positively? 10:29:45 Nigel: On the point about TTML vs IMSC for this, there are other uses of TTML than subtitles, which 10:30:00 .. may benefit from live contribution, like AD, as agreed yesterday, so it makes sense to put it there. 10:35:06 .. On the 2110 issue, have to use TTML because that is what has the IANA registration. 10:35:28 .. Also want to encourage use of codecs parameter from the beginning to avoid the non-adoption problem. 10:35:44 .. Also we will need other specs like in SMPTE, NMOS and EBU to complete the suite. 10:35:54 Frans: [scribe missed] 10:36:17 Andreas: We are here because we want to work more closely together. This work counts the same, 10:36:32 .. need to focus on working together and make sure as Pierre says that the major stakeholders align 10:36:38 .. on one approach to solving a specific problem. 10:36:45 .. Parallel solutions won't help. 10:37:01 .. I'm not so familiar with IETF. Two forms of collaboration. One is publish something and let the domain 10:37:20 .. submit some feedback, send comments back. This works not that well in the past because of workload. 10:37:34 .. The other is getting together in a room and talking through the problem. 10:37:52 .. I'm not sure about this particular work, BBC is submitter so that is helpful. The relevant people 10:38:04 .. should come together and at least discuss this paper and agree it is the right approach. 10:38:07 .. For SMPTE I'm not sure. 10:38:39 Nigel: I've already received a request to discuss in W3C TTWG and am happy to do that. 10:38:57 Frans: Putting together a timeline would be useful. 10:39:25 Pierre: To better understand 2110, there's a bunch of specifications for audio and video but is there any 10:39:28 .. about timed text today? 10:39:31 Nigel: No there isn't yet. 10:39:35 Pierre: I'd like to come back to that. 10:39:49 Andreas: Okay, from the feedback so far I haven't heard anybody objecting the approach to bring the 10:40:03 .. EBU-TT Live activity into W3C at least to mirror the most important parts of EBU-TT Live as a module 10:40:07 .. in a W3C spec. 10:40:41 Nigel: Is it clear to everyone what the syntax, semantics and general approach is? 10:41:12 Andreas: We may not have time to go through it. 10:41:27 Nigel: Just want to check if there is enough awareness to make a general decision. 10:41:34 Glenn: What's the decision 10:41:37 s/ion/ion? 10:41:47 Andreas: To bring the EBU-TT Live work into W3C 10:41:56 Glenn: Sounds good to me, mutatis mutandis. 10:42:00 Frans: To make IMSC Live? 10:42:19 Andreas: First to bring into TTML, second should we say it is our goal to make IMSC usable together with 10:42:30 .. this module, if it is a profile or an addition to IMSC has to be found out. 10:42:52 .. The other thing I think is also important is to bring over these two attributes like multiRowAlign. 10:43:05 .. Do we say the EBU-TT Live attributes are now handled in W3C space? 10:43:14 Glenn: A more practical question - do we have a prospective editor? 10:43:26 Andreas: We clarified this yesterday Nigel will be. 10:43:34 Pierre: Do we need to make a decision today? 10:43:45 Andreas: Let us see if we are ready for a decision! 10:43:51 Pierre: On the namespace? 10:44:07 Andreas: What do you mean? Concrete proposal: move the syntax and semantics into a TTML3 module 10:44:20 .. without changing syntax, then add to IMSC Live. 10:44:38 Glenn: I mentioned yesterday I would be amenable to enabling foreign namespace vocabulary in 10:44:48 .. modules, so that could work for this and for multiRowAlign and linePadding. 10:45:04 .. That would also in my mind be a potential incorporation of those into the TTML core but that is a 10:45:17 .. future process to think about. By then it may be that we have acceptance of the use of foreign 10:45:19 .. namespaces in TTML. 10:45:33 Pierre: On the relationship with IMSC, maybe the jury is still out, but my understanding is that these are 10:45:43 .. timing attributes added to a TTML document? 10:45:46 Glenn: Almost like metadata. 10:47:14 Pierre: Exactly, they're permitted additions that don't affect presentation. 10:47:19 Andreas: Apart from timebase clock 10:47:46 Nigel: Like a pre-processor that affects the time during which the document is active, otherwise yes the same. 10:47:51 Pierre: We can just do it. 10:48:02 Andreas: Both a technical and a marketing side to this. 10:48:18 Frans: So we could end up in an ideal case in a few years with everything IMSC and the world is simple, 10:48:28 .. that would be the best solution, forgetting TTML, EBU-TT all the rest of it. 10:48:45 Matt: It is being adopted already without a second thought, seemingly, so it is free of geographical boundaries 10:48:49 .. already I would say. 10:49:03 Andreas: I don't think we need a final decision on this depth, but if we agree then we should prepare the 10:49:17 .. next steps and propose it and do something similar as the two styling attributes. 10:49:29 .. For me it is clearer we should handover maintenance and control of this to W3C. 10:51:47 Nigel: If we are writing a liaison, a piece of paper, we can either cover all of it, or have two, one for 10:51:50 .. styling and one for live. 10:52:04 .. I've heard enough that there is consensus on our requirements issue to take it forward for this year. 10:52:15 Pierre: A member submission would be the best thing. 10:52:33 Nigel: Quite a lot of overhead in doing that, I'd rather start in W3C with an empty thing. 10:53:07 Andreas: Proposing to hand over control over EBU-TT Live to TTWG, to republish EBU-TT Live as a module, 10:53:19 .. further updates of EBU-TT Live done in the TTWG and not the EBU Timed Text group. 10:54:26 Nigel: EBU should have the freedom to iterate its specs if it wants to do so. 10:54:37 Frans: Query if we want to update EBU-TT Live or brand everything as IMSC Live. 10:55:02 .. That's an important consideration. I would be in favour of steering everything towards IMSC. 10:55:36 Nigel: I don't disagree, maybe EBU should publish something explaining this position to the world. 10:55:49 Andreas: We are making an important shift, we may need to discuss this further. For me it makes more 10:56:04 .. sense to make a cut and say we transfer it now to another organisation and will not update further. 10:56:20 .. For the two vocabulary items we hand over control and if there are further EBU specfications we can 10:56:29 .. publish a new spec referencing. 10:56:37 Frans: What if there is a bug in EBU-TT Live? 10:56:55 Andreas: If there is a short term need then we can do that otherwise we should not. 10:57:03 Frans: I am not sure what timelines we are talking about. 10:57:18 Marco: Isn't it about securing EBU requirements in a future spec? 10:57:22 Frans: I feel confident about that. 10:57:38 Andreas: We have enough shared members, we can collect requirements from the EBU and bring it into 10:57:47 .. the new W3C spec but do not publish in EBU scope. 10:57:55 Marco: That makes it clearer to the rest of the world. 10:58:06 Frans: It is all about simplicity. In spirit we all agree. 10:58:18 Andreas: Long term goal is agreed, need to figure out how it would work in the short term. 10:58:59 Nigel: Checking in on the agenda, we've covered almost all the topics, 15 minutes to go. 10:59:35 .. Pierre asked to come back to SMPTE 2110, and Andreas you wanted to come back to something too? 10:59:54 Topic: EBU and W3C collaboration 11:00:03 Andreas: [shares screen] 11:00:16 .. We have these two attributes, and part 1, and EBU-TT-D and part M. 11:00:30 .. Starting with EBU-TT-D, one approach we could take that would benefit industry is to say we stop 11:00:52 .. work on EBU-TT-D and point to IMSC for any future update, or missing functionality or bug fixes. 11:00:56 .. That would be a clear message. 11:01:07 .. We should try to elaborate if we can do something similar for Part 1 and Live. 11:02:44 Nigel: I think a key point here is how we handle smpte and clock timebases, which are in EBU-TT and TTML 11:02:51 .. for a reason, and not in IMSC also for good reasons. 11:03:01 Marco: As a broadcaster, I can say it won't work for the next 3 years. 11:03:27 s/reasons./reasons. Can media time only work in playout scenarios? 11:03:38 Andreas; Stick with what works and is available. 11:03:53 Pierre: Exactly, that's what you have to do. 11:04:24 .. You can adopt EBU-TT Part 1 today and constrain it. 3 works is a realistic horizon to work with 11:04:38 .. vendors and service providers and say in 3 years we plan not to use timecode for those workflows. 11:04:51 Marco: We always have legacy from our archives so we need some timebase transcoding somewhere. 11:05:06 .. It's already on my list. I think I'm forward looking within the range of broadcast views! 11:05:21 Frans: Absolutely. This is a very critical thing, we need to spell out the transition scenario, how does this 11:05:33 .. work, what do you encounter in practice. If we cannot we are not in a good situation. 11:05:46 Marco: We have to guarantee that what is in EBU-TT now remains the same in large part for IMSC. 11:05:54 Pierre: Looking at the differences, is that the sum total? 11:06:13 Andreas: Those are the main things on a quick look. The really substantive things are timecode and cell. 11:06:27 .. Cells are manageable by translation to %. 11:06:41 Pierre: Especially with IMSC 1.1 we have rh and rw so there is a lossless 1:1 translation from cell. 11:06:47 Andreas: There's more work to be done that's clear. 11:07:06 .. To say it is simple, everything IMSC, wherever it is, I see some kind of agreement that this is the long 11:07:22 .. term goal, and possibly to come together and discuss it maybe at IBC. We can try to set up a new 11:07:35 .. joint meeting at IBC. 11:07:49 Pierre: What's the timeline for submission of EBU-TT Live and EBU-TT Part 1? 11:07:56 .. And starting that convergence process. 11:08:12 Andreas: For Part 1 it is different, we haven't started the discussion. For Live it is easier, depends on 11:08:16 .. Nigel who has the most work on it. 11:08:27 Pierre: That could be part of what we try to do this year with IMSC. 11:08:33 Frans: To do the transfer, this year? 11:08:47 Pierre: Yes, as well as other additions to IMSC that we have discussed, like embedded fonts. 11:09:03 Nigel: I'm not clear what needs to be done to IMSC though? 11:09:14 Pierre: Exactly, that is why I am optimistic. 11:09:28 Andreas: The live module can be done this year. 11:09:39 Pierre: And make a goal to resolve differences with EBU-TT Part 1. 11:09:52 Andreas: That is more complex, I don't see Part 1 alignment this year. 11:10:02 Pierre: If we are targeting 3 years it would be ideal to do it this year. 11:10:14 .. I think it would be different if there had been broad adoption of EBU-TT Part 1. 11:10:24 Frans: I agree. We need a clear understanding of how it is used. 11:10:41 Marco: For example live ingest - how do you translate that to time expressions in a Part 1 document. 11:11:02 Pierre: What we saw yesterday is the bigger issue with live is not the timebase, but the separation of 11:11:11 .. flows of audio/video and subtitles. 11:11:16 Frans: But part 1 not live. 11:11:25 Pierre: This will never be used in live? 11:11:31 .. What would it be used for? 11:11:42 Frans: Prepared content 11:11:45 Pierre: Why use timecode? 11:11:54 Marco: To synchronise with the playout server. 11:11:59 Frans: Longer discussion! 11:12:18 Andreas: We can schedule for live in W3C, for part 1 we need further discussions and we should have 11:12:22 .. this kind of coming together. 11:12:29 .. What about this goal to be at IBC. 11:12:58 Nigel: Logistical issue of timing of meetings - TPAC is very close to IBC, I can't be at both probably. 11:13:10 Frans: IBC is where we can collect user input. We need that. 11:13:28 Andreas: We don't necessarily need the people in the room but we need the feedback channeled through us. 11:13:36 Frans: IBC is an opportunity to meet industry people. 11:13:44 Pierre: Do we present results or gather feedback? 11:14:02 Frans: Both, there is not enough time to gather information about timecode usage at IBC 11:14:21 Andreas: A half day workshop would be useful, after the standards people get together. 11:14:27 Pierre: So present results at IBC. 11:14:30 Frans: That would be great. 11:14:47 Pierre: I'm pretty confident that North America is happy to use IMSC for production, I'll hear more in 2 weeks. 11:14:51 .. For live I don't know. 11:15:13 Matt: Live is typically 608 originated and delivered straight into EEG or Evertz encoders. It is ripe for evolution. 11:15:29 Pierre: I don't know about live, I'm pretty sure IMSC will be good enough, I've not heard any objection to that. 11:15:34 .. Would be good to hear from EBU members. 11:15:42 Frans: It is an extremely early stage. 11:15:52 Andreas: We can cover Live and EBU-TT-D at IBC. 11:16:07 .. Then we can start to get out the message about part 1 but I agree with Frans it is more complicated. 11:16:11 .. This overall meeting would be good. 11:16:18 .. Nigel you say they are close together? 11:16:56 Pierre: The only way I could do TPAC is to be there for a day and a half. 11:17:13 Andreas: For the TTWG we had the idea to move the regular meeting out of TPAC. That would be a question 11:17:21 .. if we would move the meeting to Amsterdam. 11:17:40 Pierre: Tokyo would be a lot closer in travel time than Fukuoka! 11:18:13 .. By the way I did complain to W3M and they said they don't have IBC and NAB on their calendars! 11:18:17 .. They said it would be a good idea. 11:18:29 .. The AC meeting is right on top of NAB and TPAC on top of IBC. 11:18:48 Andreas: To sum up we try to move forward offline with EBU-TT Live as quickly as possible and we also 11:18:57 .. have some discussion about EBU-TT-D and Part 1 and share info soon. 11:19:10 .. Then we propose to both groups to have a domain meeting where we present our results but also a 11:19:32 .. face to face meeting that would be joint EBU and TTWG. We have absent TTWG people today so we have 11:19:45 .. to propose it. 11:19:57 Pierre: If you're organising meetings at IBC you're not going to make it to TPAC. 11:20:15 Matt: I would go to IBC but not TPAC. 11:20:24 Frans: So hold an industry meeting and a joint meeting both at IBC? 11:20:34 Matt: I'd request immediately before IBC or after, not during. 11:20:43 .. So we travel to Amsterdam once and stay. 11:20:52 .. If we could do it on the Thursday that would be good for me. 11:20:58 .. I will be busy after then. 11:21:08 Andreas: That makes sense. 11:21:14 Matt: I'm usually exhausted by the Tuesday. 11:21:22 Andreas: We need to discuss this in the TTWG. 11:21:42 Pierre: If TTWG is not going to meet at TPAC that would be good to know as early as possible. 11:21:54 Andreas: It would be good to send a message out at IBC. 11:22:07 Matt: Possibly arrange a presentation, say in the innovation presentation area. 11:22:31 Andreas: Those are the things that come to my mind. Anything else we need to discuss or finalise? 11:22:37 kge, 11:22:43 s/ kge,/ 11:22:50 Pierre: Is it bad not to attend TPAC? 11:23:05 Thierry: There's nothing mandatory but it is convenient for coordinating with other groups. There are no 11:23:12 .. rules about it, it is just for convenience. 11:23:18 .. The dates for meeting would be? 11:23:25 Andreas: We need to check it offline. 11:23:44 Pierre: Either Thursday 12th Sep or Tuesday 17th. 11:23:55 Andreas: If nothing else we can close the joint meeting. 11:24:59 Nigel: Thank you everyone, a good morning's work and good discussion, we can adjourn now. 11:25:03 .. [adjourns meeting] 11:25:08 rrsagent, make minutes 11:25:08 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2019/02/01-tt-minutes.html nigel 11:43:29 Zakim has left #tt 12:34:41 i/Matt: Background to fit into that/BBC subtiltes 100%, includes all live programmes. 12:34:53 i/Matt: Background to fit into that/Stateful Teletext based (legacy) technology is used for this. 12:35:05 i/Matt: Background to fit into that/Does NOT support future requirements, such as live streaming of bespoke events, cloud encoding, etc. 12:35:14 i/Matt: Background to fit into that/When studying the standards supporitng this authoring-to-encoding part of the workflow. 12:35:34 i/Matt: Background to fit into that/EBU-TT was the obvious choice (the BBC was already producing in EBU-TT). 12:35:46 i/Matt: Background to fit into that/EBU-TT-Live (Tech 3370) specifies how you can send a stream of text chunks to facilitate this scenario; with 0 or 1 documents 'active' at any time. 12:36:08 i/Matt: Background to fit into that/The EBU-TT-Live Toolkit validated the spec and helps implement it: https://github.com/ebu/ebu-tt-live-toolkit 12:36:22 i/Matt: Background to fit into that/Timed changes do not have to be explicit ('just send a new document') as was demoed in the SwissTXT demonstration at EBU PTS 2019 for example. 12:36:34 i/Matt: Background to fit into that/SMPTE timecode is not allowed (as you cannot do match on it). 12:36:42 i/Matt: Background to fit into that/Carriage using web sockets has been defined. 12:36:53 i/Matt: Background to fit into that/EBU-TT-Live / TTML carriage in RTP for use in SMPTE 2110 ("IP replacement of SDI") is being worked on; BBC has submitted an RFC for TTML carriage in RTP. 12:37:31 rrsagent, make minutes 12:37:31 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2019/02/01-tt-minutes.html nigel 12:39:45 s|s/That is|| 12:39:58 s/transmit teletext information. That is/transmit teletext information. 12:40:20 s/.. New requirement for different devices not knowing Teletext./Marco: New requirement for different devices not knowing Teletext. 12:40:41 s/.. New players on the market, mainly internet startups./Marco: New players on the market, mainly internet startups. 12:40:59 s/.. New volumes - non-audio videos without subtitles/Marco: New volumes - non-audio videos without subtitles 12:41:15 s/.. new functionality to exist that is not in TTML2./Glenn: new functionality to exist that is not in TTML2. 12:41:28 rrsagent, make minutes 12:41:28 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2019/02/01-tt-minutes.html nigel 12:44:21 scribeOptions: -final -noEmbedDiagnostics 12:44:24 rrsagent, make minutes 12:44:24 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2019/02/01-tt-minutes.html nigel