15:59:39 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #tt
15:59:39 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2019/02/21-tt-irc
15:59:41 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs public
15:59:41 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #tt
15:59:43 <trackbot> Meeting: Timed Text Working Group Teleconference
15:59:43 <trackbot> Date: 21 February 2019
15:59:47 <cyril> chair: nigel
15:59:51 <cyril> scribe: Cyril
16:00:02 <cyril> Present+ Nigel, Gary, Philippe, Cyril
16:00:32 <cyril> Agenda: https://github.com/w3c/ttwg/issues/19
16:00:34 <nigel> Log: https://www.w3.org/2019/02/21-tt-irc
16:00:53 <cyril> Present+ Pierre
16:01:01 <cyril> Regrets+ Glenn
16:02:16 <cyril> Present+ Matt
16:02:29 <mike> mike has joined #tt
16:02:58 <cyril> Present+ Mike
16:03:06 <MattS> MattS has joined #tt
16:03:28 <cyril> Topic: This meeting
16:05:07 <cyril> Topic: TTML Profile Registry Actions, Pull Requests and Issues
16:05:27 <cyril> nigel: I've looked at the issues and Glenn does not seem to have update the issues
16:05:37 <cyril> ... there are still 2 PR: his and mine on his
16:05:49 <cyril> ... Mike nothing to add on that
16:06:02 <cyril> mike: no I kind of lost track of what was going on
16:06:26 <cyril> nigel: I noticed something that relates to the RTP
16:06:38 <cyril> ... the codecs parameter specifies + and |
16:06:51 <cyril> ... but it references processor profile combination in TTML2
16:07:03 <cyril> ... I've added issue #62
16:07:37 <cyril> ... it seems we can't make progress without glenn
16:07:51 <cyril> pierre: is anything blocked here?
16:07:55 <cyril> nigel: yes
16:08:32 <cyril> ... we should have published an update of the profile registry regarding the publications on Nov 8th
16:08:49 <cyril> pierre: IMSC1.1 is there in the editor draft
16:08:55 <cyril> nigel: but not in the published one
16:09:10 <cyril> ... we should be really trying to update it to make sure it has the correct set of profiles
16:09:30 <cyril> pierre: Mike, what do you need to get this published
16:09:42 <cyril> mike: I am not the editor anymore
16:09:59 <cyril> ... because the document has turned into many issues and not the simple document I thought I would be editing
16:10:28 <cyril> pierre: people care about the list only
16:10:33 <cyril> ... can we keep it simple
16:10:47 <cyril> nigel: yes, but glenn does not seem to have this view
16:10:48 <plh> q+ to ask questions about IMSC 1.1
16:11:08 <plh> q-
16:11:12 <cyril> ... and glenn is the only editor
16:11:58 <cyril> pierre: we should revisit in a month and possibly change strategy
16:12:22 <cyril> nigel: straw poll, does anybody else share my view that it is important to publish
16:12:32 <cyril> pierre: yes, I thought this has been publish
16:12:35 <cyril> cyril: yes
16:13:27 <cyril> pierre: if it's a resource isssue, I'm willing to take a stab at it but would simplify the document a lot
16:13:41 <cyril> ... the table that really matters is 4.1
16:13:50 <cyril> ... all the rest of the text is really not useful
16:13:56 <cyril> ... especially if it causes issues
16:15:13 <cyril> nigel: there is consensus that we should get this done
16:15:30 <cyril> ... I'll mark this item on the agenda in 2 weeks
16:16:33 <cyril> cyril: I think we should be stronger
16:16:44 <cyril> ... if there is no update in X weeks, we should change strategy and editor
16:16:59 <cyril> nigel: how many X is?
16:17:54 <cyril> cyril: I would say X=2 weeks with a possible extension
16:18:20 <cyril> plh: my philosophy is: if the ED is better than TR, publish a new version no matter open issues
16:18:28 <cyril> pierre: I agree with cyril
16:18:32 <cyril> nigel: ok works for me
16:18:57 <cyril> Topic: TTWG Future requirements
16:19:13 <cyril> nigel: no update this week
16:19:20 <plh> q+
16:19:23 <cyril> q+
16:20:16 <plh> Cyril: not clear how we're converging here. We had proposals and ideas, but how do we decide to move forward?
16:20:27 <cyril> cyril: not clear to me how we turn reqs into text
16:20:34 <plh> ack cyril
16:20:48 <cyril> nigel: if WD is 1st of June/July, the first thing to do is to write explainers
16:21:51 <cyril> cyril: I fear that writing explainers will delay the spec
16:23:01 <cyril> nigel: if you want to go and propose text go ahead
16:23:25 <cyril> pierre: in general, whoever submitted the requirement is on the hook to provide the first pass text
16:23:36 <cyril> ... until that happens, nothing can happen
16:24:00 <cyril> cyril: clearer now thanks
16:24:26 <cyril> ... what about modularization
16:24:38 <cyril> ... should the proposed text be in the form of a module
16:25:00 <cyril> nigel: if you think the text you want to propose fits in a module, then yes propose it as a module
16:25:25 <cyril> ... I'm happy to schedule time in the agenda for early discussion
16:25:32 <cyril> ... if any group steer is heplful
16:25:42 <plh> https://www.w3.org/TR/2006/NOTE-ttaf1-req-20060427/
16:25:54 <cyril> plh: do you mind if I retire the UC and Req for TTML1
16:26:10 <cyril> ... right now it appears in the page of W3C
16:26:28 <cyril> ... I want to say this document is only here for historical purposes
16:26:38 <cyril> nigel: TTML specs reference it
16:26:49 <cyril> plh: if you think it still matters, then I won't change it
16:27:00 <cyril> nigel: yes we reviewed it
16:27:11 <cyril> plh: ok, then I won't touch it
16:27:34 <nigel> q?
16:27:37 <nigel> ack pl
16:27:42 <cyril> Topic: TTML in RTP IETF submission
16:27:57 <cyril> nigel: we discussed it last week
16:28:03 <cyril> ... there has not been any update
16:28:18 <cyril> ... but the ongoing work will fix the current issues
16:28:27 <cyril> ... the new IANA section will say
16:29:23 <plh> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-sandford-payload-rtp-ttml/
16:29:26 <cyril> ... W3C consideration sections will disappear
16:29:53 <cyril> ... and IANA section will say "No IANA action" and the duplicate text has been removed
16:30:09 <cyril> mike: do you want to at least make a note that the registration details are in the W3C
16:30:19 <cyril> nigel: yes it is somewhere else in the document
16:30:26 <cyril> mike: oh I would put it here
16:30:35 <cyril> nigel: it's in section 7
16:30:40 <cyril> mike: odd location, but ok
16:30:52 <cyril> nigel: the other change is around the codecs parameter in the SDP
16:31:09 <cyril> ... we will say "shall be present" and mention processor profiles
16:31:28 <cyril> ... I'm planning to use the profile combination logic of TTML2
16:31:49 <cyril> plh: what was the incentive to copy the IANA registration
16:32:03 <cyril> nigel: we will remove it
16:32:46 <nigel> q?
16:33:04 <cyril> Topic: WebVTT Implementation Report
16:33:23 <cyril> gkatsev: I've been working on it, submitted 2 PR to WPT
16:33:26 <cyril> ... just approved
16:33:37 <cyril> ... one fixes the preferences for line start and line end
16:33:43 <cyril> ... implementations were correct
16:33:58 <cyril> ... one for the references for white space pre
16:34:11 <cyril> ... the rendering tests go up to 81% completion
16:34:19 <cyril> ... the big thing on which I'm working now is region
16:34:34 <cyril> ... unfortunately, the collision avoidance tests are not passing
16:34:43 <cyril> ... difference of implementation
16:34:49 <cyril> ... Chrome only does it in some cases
16:34:59 <cyril> ... snap-to-line is true
16:35:11 <cyril> ... the tests we have use snap-to-line false
16:35:36 <cyril> ... some browsers like Firefox also implement it but not according to my reading of the spec
16:35:49 <cyril> ... you should choose the one above the cue first
16:36:03 <cyril> ... I can raise issue against browsers but not sure it will be fixed soon
16:36:14 <cyril> ... and that would put the IR at risk
16:36:27 <cyril> pierre: I'd love to pick your brains on this topic
16:36:39 <cyril> ... it is really a part that I find weird and confusing
16:36:50 <cyril> ... the author specifies a position but not completely
16:37:00 <cyril> ... I think it's a pretty complex algorithm
16:37:15 <cyril> ... but the author should have complete control over position
16:37:28 <cyril> ... collision avoidance should not be in the spec
16:38:01 <cyril> gkatsev: looking at the test it seems to have been even more complicated
16:38:13 <cyril> pierre: I'm not surprised that implementations do different things
16:38:26 <cyril> ... one option is to remove it and say collision avoidance is up to the implementation
16:38:35 <cyril> gkatsev: there is an accessibility issue
16:38:44 <cyril> ... you want to always show the caption if you can
16:39:00 <cyril> ... maybe on snap to line false we could remove that
16:39:09 <cyril> pierre: I don't dispute the overall goal
16:39:24 <cyril> ... it's ok to put that burden in the implementation rather than in the spec
16:39:40 <cyril> ... I haven't seen cases with multiple tracks
16:39:54 <cyril> ... maybe forced but it's mutually exclusive with subs
16:40:24 <cyril> gkatsev: I looked at WPT.fyi tests
16:40:42 <cyril> ... it seems that the API jumped from 80 to 90 and so they are up to fixing things
16:41:03 <cyril> ... one question: assuming WebVTT is removed from the charter
16:41:17 <cyril> ... what are the options for WebVTT going forward?
16:41:24 <cyril> q+ pierre
16:41:33 <cyril> ack pierre
16:41:45 <cyril> pierre: have we eliminated just trimming the spec
16:41:53 <cyril> ...to match what implementations do?
16:42:03 <cyril> nigel: not sure we have time because that means publishing CR
16:42:26 <cyril> pierre: if that were the strategy, it would help scope the charter
16:42:53 <cyril> plh: republishing the spec by just listing features at risk, I don't see why it would be long
16:43:06 <cyril> nigel: just based on experience
16:43:29 <cyril> plh: it's not like the charter is ready to go in a month
16:43:35 <cyril> nigel: the draft to review in march
16:43:49 <cyril> plh: if we want to take the time, we have the time
16:44:04 <cyril> ... but if nothing happens until now and the time the charter goes to AC
16:44:21 <cyril> ... I will oppose mentioning WebVTT in the charter
16:44:31 <cyril> ... and it would simply remain in the community group
16:45:09 <cyril> pierre: going back to what drove having both WebVTT and TTML in the same group, is because having them in two separate groups would have been worse
16:45:29 <cyril> ... putting browsers in the path of publication is not a good idea because that is out of our control
16:45:42 <cyril> ... is there an appetite and interest to trim the spec to match what is done today
16:45:57 <cyril> nigel: there is not a single simple answer to that
16:46:03 <cyril> ... it depends what would be removed
16:46:29 <cyril> ... for example things that are needed to meet FCC reqs would be a problem
16:46:39 <cyril> pierre: what do you think of trimming?
16:46:45 <cyril> gkatsev: probably possible
16:46:54 <cyril> ... but removing things like region is very bad
16:47:03 <cyril> ... it's needed for FCC compliance and accessibility
16:47:31 <cyril> pierre: it's even worse to have something that does not match reality?
16:47:48 <cyril> ... for example ISMC1 did not support Japanese, but IMSC1.1 does
16:48:01 <cyril> ... it's better to have a first spec that reflects reality and then have a second version
16:48:06 <cyril> gkatsev: maybe that's better
16:48:10 <cyril> ... I'm not sure
16:48:15 <cyril> plh: you can branch the current spec
16:48:22 <cyril> ... and do what pierre is suggesting
16:48:36 <cyril> ... you keep an ED with everything to start a v2
16:49:15 <cyril> pierre: what is bad is having specs that are meaningless
16:49:25 <cyril> gkatsev: maybe that's the best goal
16:49:44 <cyril> plh: I think you should have asap a list of features that could be marked at risk
16:49:46 <cyril> ... for review
16:50:12 <cyril> ... that is assuming that trimming would not take months
16:50:31 <cyril> ... and based on the IR would go to PR quickly
16:50:44 <cyril> ... we can even publish WD for v2 before v1 is published
16:50:53 <cyril> gkatsev: that sounds like the best course of action
16:50:59 <nigel> q?
16:51:07 <cyril> Topic: TTWG Charter
16:51:29 <cyril> plh: the draft now matches the template
16:51:38 <cyril> nigel: I have raised 3 issues
16:51:43 <cyril> ... 34 to 36
16:51:58 <cyril> ... 34 is to update regarding TT Requirements
16:52:11 <cyril> ... specifically live contributions and audio profile
16:52:21 <cyril> ... 35 is about modularization
16:52:32 <cyril> ... to make it clear that deliverables will be modules
16:52:48 <cyril> ... and to allow the group to decide which module will be on the rec track or not
16:52:59 <cyril> ... 36 is a placeholder for WebVTT
16:53:18 <cyril> ... I think that is the scope of what needs to change in the charter
16:53:32 <cyril> ... let me know if anything else needs to change by raising an issue on the repo
16:53:35 <nigel> -> https://github.com/w3c/charter-timed-text Draft TTWG Charter repo
16:53:52 <plh> https://w3c.github.io/charter-timed-text/
16:54:13 <cyril> nigel: my timetable is to update the charter in the next weeks, except WebVTT
16:54:43 <cyril> Topic: Hosting additional test/example resources
16:54:53 <cyril> nigel: pierre received some material from Fox
16:54:57 <cyril> ... that would be useful
16:55:06 <cyril> ... not as test but generally useful
16:55:35 <cyril> pierre: Fox have put 2 test reel, one for IMSC 1 text, IMSC 1 image, IMSC 1.1 text and image
16:55:50 <cyril> ... it's IMSC documents and associated video and render
16:56:02 <cyril> ... this is not a unit test, not covering all variations
16:56:15 <cyril> ... but covers several reasonable variations
16:56:38 <cyril> ... IMSC 1 and IMSC 1.1 unit tests are not good sample materials, missing video and sync
16:56:51 <cyril> ... that test material is really good complement to the IMSC unit tests
16:56:57 <cyril> ... they've offered it to W3C
16:57:06 <cyril> ... it would be more valuable if hosted by W3C
16:57:16 <cyril> ... available under BSD licence
16:57:33 <cyril> ... my recommendation is for W3C to accept the offer and host the content as part of the WG work
16:57:48 <cyril> plh: my initial reaction is to say no because it's already hosted on GH
16:58:04 <cyril> ... you will need to convince me
16:58:12 <cyril> ... why should we do it for this WG?
16:58:19 <cyril> ... do we need to insure maintenance
16:58:50 <cyril> pierre: a member of the WG told me their lawyers have cleared using materials from W3C not from general GH
16:59:32 <cyril> ... even if the different site uses BSD
16:59:47 <cyril> ... another reason is for W3C to bring more people to W3C
16:59:58 <cyril> ... because the reel is of good quality
17:00:14 <cyril> ... on the maintenance the folks at Fox intend to maintain it because they use it
17:00:23 <cyril> ... so the work by this group would be minimal
17:00:46 <cyril> plh: I don't care if Fox maintains it, I need commitment from the group (it may be delegated to Fox)
17:00:52 <nigel> q+
17:00:55 <cyril> pierre: I'm happy to commit to that
17:01:11 <nigel> ack n
17:01:37 <cyril> nigel: if someone is implementing IMSC they need to find this resource
17:01:53 <cyril> ... we also have a wiki page and we could add it there
17:01:56 <cyril> q+
17:02:16 <cyril> ... I'm not sure what the right place in W3C is
17:02:38 <cyril> ... maybe MDN could also be a good place, for developer guidance
17:03:15 <cyril> pierre: linking from MDN would be a good thing but this does not solve the license/lawyer issue
17:05:13 <cyril> cyril: I think this is important to have this test in W3C space because this is testing video + IMSC and it is the first
17:05:41 <cyril> nigel: a lot of people have done it
17:05:51 <cyril> pierre: yes but no one has made it available to W3C
17:06:12 <cyril> ... HbbTV has nice tests apparently but they are not available
17:06:28 <cyril> ... I think the wiki is fine
17:06:43 <cyril> plh: why not create a separate repo
17:06:49 <cyril> pierre: i'm fine with that too
17:07:19 <cyril> nigel: we'll try to resolve offline. I don't have objections
17:07:49 <cyril> plh: I'm happy to have the group adopt those tests
17:08:00 <cyril> ... without the WG support I cannot take it
17:08:21 <cyril> nigel: does anybody have an objection to W3C hosting it?
17:08:29 <cyril> nigel: seems not
17:08:46 <cyril> ... then plh you can go ahead
17:08:53 <cyril> plh: ok I'll follow up with Pierre
17:08:59 <cyril> nigel: I added another AOB
17:09:05 <cyril> ... you have a poll in your inbox
17:09:15 <cyril> ... as to how we get to meet in september
17:09:26 <cyril> ... please reply
17:09:53 <nigel> -> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/34314/2019_September-F2F/ Poll
17:10:58 <nigel> Topic: Meeting close
17:11:11 <nigel> scribe: nigel
17:11:12 <nigel> Nigel: Thanks everyone, apologies for running 10 minutes over. [adjourns meeting]
17:11:18 <nigel> rrsagent, make minutes
17:11:18 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2019/02/21-tt-minutes.html nigel
17:15:38 <nigel> i/Cyril: not clear /scribe: plh
17:15:48 <nigel> i/cyril: note clear to me/scribe: cyril
17:16:56 <nigel> s/and the duplicate text has been removed/and the duplicate media type registration text has been removed
17:28:41 <nigel> s/API jumped from 80 to 90/API passing tests jumped from 80% to 90%
17:31:51 <nigel> rrsagent, make minutes
17:31:51 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2019/02/21-tt-minutes.html nigel
17:34:32 <nigel> i/cyril: not clear to me/scribe: cyril
17:34:33 <nigel> rrsagent, make minutes
17:34:33 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2019/02/21-tt-minutes.html nigel
17:35:07 <nigel> Regrets+ Andreas, Thierry
17:35:15 <nigel> scribeOptions: -final -noEmbedDiagnostics
17:35:19 <nigel> rrsagent, make minutes
17:35:19 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2019/02/21-tt-minutes.html nigel
17:48:14 <nigel> s|i/cyril: note clear to me/scribe: cyril||
17:48:16 <nigel> rrsagent, make minutes
17:48:16 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2019/02/21-tt-minutes.html nigel
19:19:35 <Zakim> Zakim has left #tt