14:01:17 RRSAgent has joined #tt 14:01:17 logging to https://www.w3.org/2019/04/04-tt-irc 14:01:19 RRSAgent, make logs public 14:01:19 Zakim has joined #tt 14:01:21 Meeting: Timed Text Working Group Teleconference 14:01:21 Date: 04 April 2019 14:01:32 Agenda: https://github.com/w3c/ttwg/issues/31 14:01:41 Log: https://www.w3.org/2019/04/04-tt-irc 14:01:44 scribe: nigel 14:01:46 Chair: Nigel 14:01:53 Present: Gary, Thierry, Nigel 14:04:39 Topic: This meeting 14:06:56 Nigel: We have possible regrets from Cyril. 14:08:14 .. For today, [iterates through agenda]. Any particular points to make sure we cover, or other business? 14:08:22 Thierry: No. 14:08:37 Gary: No. 14:08:42 Nigel: Okay let's get going. 14:09:05 .. In the light of the low attendance (maybe people were confused about the start time today?) let's do 14:09:08 .. what we can for now. 14:09:57 Topic: Bugzilla 14:10:04 Nigel: This may affect WebVTT? 14:10:20 Gary: Yes, I think most of the bugs have been transferred but its possible some old things could have 14:10:22 .. been forgotten. 14:10:36 Thierry: I just saw the message this morning about Mercurial and Bugzilla. I know they will be archived 14:10:42 .. but I don't know more. 14:11:30 Thierry: We have not used it for any TTML based work so this goes back some time. 14:11:43 Gary: I went to the page and it says its an archived snapshot so maybe its fine to see stuff that existed 14:11:48 .. but not add new things. 14:12:01 .. Also the newest bug on VTT there is 2015, so I'm not sure how relevant it is. 14:12:09 Thierry: I think Silvia handled it. 14:12:22 Nigel: OK unless someone says otherwise, let's assume there's no action to take. 14:12:30 Topic: Mercurial 14:12:57 Nigel: I am 99% sure we transferred all the Mercurial content to GitHub already. Certainly the 14:13:18 .. GitHub ttml1 repo contains what used to be in the TTML Mercurial repo, since it was created by 14:13:32 .. transfer from Mercurial. For example the draft API docs are in there, and the requirements docs. 14:13:53 .. So I don't think there's any work to do there. 14:14:00 Thierry: I can't think of more on the top of my head. 14:14:17 Gary: There is one old draft spec on the TTCG about 608 to VTT that seems to be on Mercurial that may 14:14:22 .. be useful to capture. 14:14:29 https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/text-tracks/raw-file/default/608toVTT/608toVTT.html 14:15:05 https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/text-tracks/raw-file/default/608toVTT/ 14:15:56 Nigel: I see there's a sketch of an authoring guideline. 14:16:02 Gary: We can probably drop that. 14:16:09 .. There's also an old version of the region spec. 14:16:26 Nigel: That's all in the WebVTT spec now isn't it? 14:16:31 Gary: Yes, exactly. 14:16:50 Nigel: Is it worth creating a repo for the 608 one? 14:17:04 Gary: We can just grab it and add it to the VTT repo as a supplement, just to keep it visible. 14:17:11 .. I think it's outdated and needs to be updated. 14:17:19 Nigel: OK, do you want to do that? 14:17:22 Gary: Sure! 14:17:25 Nigel: Thank you. 14:17:51 Topic: CVS 14:18:26 Nigel: We've not used the decommissioned CVS for anything have we? 14:18:41 Thierry: No I don't think so. It's different to the CVS for our W3C site, for example 14:19:07 Nigel: Great, so we don't need to do anything there. 14:20:34 Topic: WebVTT Implementation report and CR update 14:21:12 Nigel: On the Implementation Report, any answers to the Netflix questions about Japanese language support? 14:21:44 Gary: There is support for ruby positioning, ta te chu yoko (text combine upright) and bouten in WebVTT 14:22:05 .. because they are permitted CSS, but no browser has implemented it. 14:22:10 s/and bouten / 14:22:34 .. There is browser support for bouten (text-emphasis in CSS) but it is not on the whitelist for WebVTT. 14:23:02 .. Then slanted text: I'm not sure what is necessary for it, but it seems potentially possible in CSS with 14:23:13 .. tranform(skew) but that is definitely not whitelisted. 14:23:35 .. I think Japanese support is important but I don't think it should hold up getting the current CR 14:23:50 .. through into PR, and then the Japanese support can come as the next thing that I work on. 14:23:59 Nigel: That's clear, thank you. 14:24:22 .. Does that mean web platform tests for ruby positioning fail? 14:24:33 Gary: There are no tests for it at the moment, and it is something we can potentially add now. 14:24:49 Nigel: I think it makes sense to do that because it is whitelisted CSS. 14:24:59 .. Do you think any implementations might pass that? 14:25:01 pal has joined #tt 14:25:15 Gary: I could likely get it working in vtt.js. 14:27:27 Nigel: I wonder if it might work on iOS. 14:27:48 Gary: Also the cue setting of vertical is sort-of available. Firefox and Chrome position it wierdly and 14:28:09 .. Safari inverts the two vertical options - it's possible that can be fixed quickly so I will ping Eric and hope 14:28:13 .. it does not hold anything up. 14:28:55 Nigel: That's definitely not one of those WebVTT non-intuitive oddities? 14:29:01 Gary: I'll check but I don't think so. 14:29:21 .. Chrome puts it in the middle. Firefox puts it on the correct side but indented quite a lot, like a quarter 14:29:25 .. of the way in from the side. 14:29:40 Nigel: Thanks for that. Moving on to the CR publication. 14:29:47 .. I see that we published the CR today. 14:31:13 -> https://www.w3.org/TR/2019/CR-webvtt1-20190404/ WebVTT 2nd CR published today 14:31:36 Nigel: There are some things that need fixing and can hopefully be done in-place. 14:31:53 .. The Latest Version link takes you to the old one, https://www.w3.org/TR/webvtt1/ 14:32:09 .. And I noticed that the changes and diff links are not up to date, in the SoTD. 14:32:56 -> https://www.w3.org/TR/webvtt1/changes.html Changes document 14:33:05 Nigel: The addition of at risk features is not listed. 14:33:10 Gary: Yes 14:33:35 Nigel: And the diff is the diff to the old version. 14:33:41 Gary: And it doesn't include the at risk piece. 14:33:46 Nigel: Yes 14:33:52 -> https://www.w3.org/TR/webvtt1/diff.html Diff FPWD to CR1 14:34:26 Nigel: I don't know why this diff was done in this style, it's odd. We normally see the HTML diff 14:34:41 .. generated by the W3 diff service, which gives nice looking HTML output. 14:35:10 tmichel has joined #tt 14:35:36 Nigel: It doesn't seem like an Editorial change is needed, can you please look at it Thierry? 14:35:40 Thierry: I will look into it. 14:36:11 Nigel: There's one other point - the Editor has not been updated! 14:36:30 .. Silvia raised this already, she needs to be moved to the former Editors list and Gary added as the 14:36:32 .. current Editor. 14:36:57 Thierry: As a matter of fact today I updated the publication on the wiki page - it says Silvia but when 14:37:12 .. I saw the published version I left it like that, because that reflects what it says. 14:37:15 .. Sorry Gary! 14:37:25 Gary: It's ok, I was just focused on getting the CR out there. 14:38:12 Topic: TTWG Charter 14:38:25 Nigel: Thank you Pierre for preparing a simpler charter draft for us to work on. 14:38:38 -> https://github.com/w3c/charter-timed-text/pull/47 Charter draft pull request #47 14:40:03 Nigel: Pierre and I had a bit of discussion offline and I think you processed my comments before 14:40:09 .. opening the pull request? 14:40:22 Pierre: I did one of them, we can go over the other two now. 14:40:24 Nigel: Yes please. 14:41:04 https://htmlpreview.github.io/?https://github.com/w3c/charter-timed-text/blob/fc3f5e948afd372cccc7dac647da20ab943bddd7/index.html 14:41:09 Pierre: One of your comments was about the sentence present before that mentioned adopting features 14:41:24 .. from other groups like SMPTE, EBU etc. 14:41:28 Nigel: Yes 14:41:44 Pierre: I don't think that's a scope issue, fairly certain it's not a success criteria issue. 14:41:54 .. So I think it's more of a coordination and dependency issue with other groups. 14:42:01 .. I added a sentence under 4.2 instead. 14:42:39 Nigel: It's good to have that in 4.2, but my request to add it to Scope follows a conversation I had with 14:42:58 .. Philippe, in which I was discussing adoption of live contribution functionality from EBU, and he said 14:43:17 .. no member submission, for example, was needed, because it was clearly in scope of the WG to do this 14:43:20 .. based on the Charter. 14:43:47 .. I think we may need explicit permission here rather than relying on implicit acceptance. 14:44:39 Pierre: We should state the work we are going to do rather than having an obtuse unmeasurable statement. 14:44:49 .. If we want to work on live contribution we should add it to the deliverables. 14:45:05 Nigel: On the obtuse and unmeasurable... 14:45:23 Pierre: it's obtuse in the light of what you just said, before I just thought it was unmeasurable. 14:45:47 Nigel: Like you say, it's not a success criterion, rather it's a permission, so yes, it is unmeasurable because 14:45:55 .. it doesn't require us to do anything. 14:49:41 tm has joined #tt 14:53:57 Nigel: I see that the Scope as drafted here already allows for prepared and live formats, and the 14:54:12 .. Deliverables allows for development of new technical reports, Rec or non-Rec. 14:54:33 .. So I think we're probably covered on that point. 14:55:22 .. Any other comments about the freedom and permission to do new stuff? 14:55:27 group: [no other comments] 14:56:06 Pierre: The next question is why list existing technical reports? 14:56:29 .. I guess there are some weird rules about IP where you have to list WDs, which the team addresses. 14:56:37 .. Take SDP-US, why should the group address that explicitly? 14:56:47 .. You pointed out the wiki has that list. I looked at it and it is not complete. 14:57:06 .. If I were reviewing a Charter I think it would be important to put that list somewhere. 14:57:18 .. It's okay for it to be the wiki, my preference would be the wiki, but the wiki is not complete. 14:57:24 .. How do we deal with this? 14:57:53 Nigel: The obvious thing, regardless of the Charter is to complete the wiki list. Thierry? 14:58:00 Thierry: What is the delta? 14:58:13 Pierre: All the Notes and Recs the WG has produced. 14:58:20 .. We can just point to the wiki then from the Charter. 14:58:27 Thierry: Okay, I don't know if that's do-able. 14:58:39 Pierre: The alternative is to list them in the Charter. The downside is the list may become 14:58:45 .. obsolete when new documents are added. 14:58:46 Nigel: Yes 14:58:57 Thierry: That's the drawback with a frozen document like the Charter. 14:59:28 Pierre: We can delete that then? 14:59:50 Nigel: I think we do need to say we can update or publish new versions of existing publications, and 15:00:01 .. I prefer to point to the list on the wiki 15:00:04 plh has joined #tt 15:00:11 -> https://www.w3.org/wiki/TimedText/Publications Wiki publication list 15:00:21 rrsagent, make minutes 15:00:21 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2019/04/04-tt-minutes.html nigel 15:00:47 Pierre: Just pushing that change right now. 15:01:26 Nigel: The wiki list is pretty good, I'm not sure what's missing. 15:01:34 Pierre: I found one at least... 15:01:53 .. The role registry for example. 15:02:17 glenn has joined #tt 15:02:58 Thierry: There's a colour code showing if the spec is done (green), ongoing (yelllow), notes (blue), abandoned (grey) 15:03:15 .. maybe I should highlight it better. Then there's the status column, Rec/CR/WG Note etc. 15:03:56 Present+ Pierre, Glenn 15:04:31 Pierre: I pushed that change. 15:04:36 Nigel: Looks good to me, thank you. 15:05:00 Thierry: I will add the role registry. 15:06:29 Nigel: I wonder if the RDF from /TR would help. 15:06:36 -> https://www.w3.org/2002/01/tr-automation/tr.rdf /TR RDF file 15:07:09 .. It has Notes in but not the publishing WG by the looks of things. 15:07:45 Thierry: The Role registry is only on the wiki, which is why it is not there. 15:07:45 https://www.w3.org/wiki/TimedText 15:08:21 .. This shows publications including the Role registry in the wiki. Should I have a link to that wiki page? 15:08:26 Nigel: I would say so. 15:08:27 https://www.w3.org/wiki/TTML/RoleRegistry 15:08:41 Pierre: Or turn it into a WG Note, I'm happy either way. 15:10:14 Nigel: The wording "entertainment chain" needs a bit of wordsmithing, to include any media context 15:10:31 .. The only other point I'd make is the scope is restricted to formats, but should it include APIs, for example? 15:10:47 Pierre: I kept that because it seems core to the existing scope. 15:11:19 Nigel: I agree the current scope does say formats. 15:11:32 Pierre: To mimic the broader mission we should allow ourselves to publish other specifications. 15:11:49 .. First line would become: 15:11:55 .. This group is chartered to develop specifications used for the representation of timed text in online media. 15:12:16 Nigel: Any objections to that? 15:12:18 .. 15:12:25 .. Okay, go for it. 15:12:31 Pierre: Alright. 15:14:58 Nigel: I had a question. The current draft charter has, under Deliverables, "Normative Specifications" and 15:15:22 .. "Other Deliverables". Is it important to keep that? The draft we're working on here replaces them with 15:15:33 .. Technical Reports, and Other Deliverables. 15:15:44 Thierry: I don't know what a normative specification is, I know what a normative section is. 15:15:59 Glenn: That's a good point, specifications aren't normative in themselves. 15:16:06 .. Say Rec track if that's what you mean. 15:16:20 Nigel: We don't even need to do that. 15:16:51 Pierre: I've done another push to fix the scope as discussed. 15:17:22 .. On the "entertainment chain" point, we can just remove that sub-clause... 15:17:28 Nigel: Yes, do that (enthusiastically)! 15:17:32 Pierre: Alright, done. 15:18:42 Nigel: Brilliant. I suggest we merge this and use it as the basis for a new review. 15:18:45 Pierre: +1 15:19:22 Nigel: Any objections to merging this? 15:19:27 group: [no objections] 15:19:32 Nigel: Okay please merge it. 15:19:57 Nigel: Still to do, after our review, is addressing the Chair section and basis documents for listed 15:20:08 .. deliverables, which Philippe tells me are both jobs for W3 staff. 15:21:00 Pierre: I will merge that. 15:21:21 Nigel: Thank you Pierre for your work here! 15:21:28 Topic: TTML Profile Registry 15:21:46 Nigel: Unless anyone has anything to discuss here, I think the only thing is to note that we are half 15:23:03 .. way through the Decision review period for publishing a new version of the Note and addressing 15:23:08 .. issue 71 later. 15:25:34 Topic: September F2F meeting 15:25:47 Pierre: Tuesday to Thursday is the best I can do at TPAC. 15:25:54 Glenn: Have we signed up to Thursday and Friday? 15:25:59 Nigel: Yes, so far. 15:26:22 Nigel: If we scheduled our meeting for Tuesday and Thursday we would likely clash with AC on both days. 15:26:35 Topic: TTML3 15:26:42 Glenn: Pull #30? 15:26:50 Topic: Add module framework 15:26:58 github: https://github.com/w3c/ttml3/pull/30 15:27:21 Glenn: I don't know what we're waiting on for this. 15:27:43 .. We discussed it, and Pierre preferred not to define public and private, which are gone. I'm just waiting 15:27:58 .. for an approval. It's fine to consider backporting this to TTML2, but I want it wrapped up in TTML3 15:28:14 .. first. If it satisfies concerns about new functionality then that may be something to discuss later. 15:28:33 Pierre: The spec still references private modules. 15:28:42 Glenn: Yes, just in prose, not as a defined term. That was intentional. 15:28:53 Pierre: I'm happy to file a separate issue on TTML2. 15:29:10 .. What I find really hard is not being able to do a diff. Reviewing the snippets out of context is really hard. 15:29:15 .. Any plans to get a diff working? 15:29:33 Glenn: There used to be a W3 diff service. I haven't tried it for a while, but last year it wasn't working at all 15:29:45 .. and the only way I could get a diff was to request Philippe to do it manually and send me a link, which 15:30:00 .. was inefficient. If the service is working then someone has it working somewhere. I agree with you it 15:30:11 .. would be nice to have it working, but it's orthogonal to this particular issue. 15:31:15 Nigel: This is important for working group effectiveness. We already build the spec onto a different branch. 15:31:33 .. all that is needed is to present it in a useful form. Thierry, can you follow up with Philippe on this? 15:31:51 Thierry: There have been many requests about the diff tool not working, but the systems teams has 15:31:55 .. not yet resolved that issue. 15:32:27 Nigel: That is part of the problem, but this is broader than that. The PR-Preview tool can generate diffs, 15:32:35 .. but we can't use it here, which is the painful part. 15:34:04 .. It's hard to know what more to do. 15:34:14 .. Perhaps we can use htmlpreview.github.io 15:34:25 Pierre: I do have a technical question about this pull request. 15:35:04 .. Document conformance: How does pruning for conformance work in the context of modules? 15:35:08 .. Section 4 step 1. 15:36:17 .. It currently refers to vocabulary in section 5 Vocabulary, but that's no longer true. 15:36:36 Glenn: The pull request modifies the text in section 4. It effectively incorporates the language into the 15:36:53 .. previous sentence by saying it is defined in terms of a collection of functional modules. 15:37:01 .. It doesn't distinguish between internal and external modules. 15:37:51 Pierre: The requirement for this to work, profiles of TTML have to implicitly or explicitly define the 15:37:57 .. collection of functional modules that they support. 15:38:07 Glenn: Yes, and right now I think that's how they work, and it is implicit at this point. 15:38:21 .. All of the feature designators in TTML2 for example can be associated with some internal module, 15:38:30 .. in terms of element and attribute definitions. 15:38:40 .. Then there's the additional loosey-goosey link between modules and schemas. 15:38:56 .. The language in 4.1 has always been rather general and I didn't want to make it less general. 15:39:12 .. I also wanted to introduce modules and have it cover the existing functionality as well as new functionality. 15:39:26 .. That language is simpler than what was there previously and works at least in my mind. 15:41:27 Nigel: There's a lot more complexity about relating profiles to vocabulary which I don't think we can 15:41:44 .. really address in 4.1 without getting very verbose. This is probably as good as we can get. 15:43:26 Pierre: Section 5 is still referenced from 4.2 and 4.3. 15:43:34 Glenn: Is that a barrier to resolving this pull request? 15:43:50 Pierre: It's a copy-paste wouldn't you say, would you be able to address it? 15:44:11 Glenn: I see what you mean, not just referencing 5 Vocabulary. 15:44:20 .. I agree and will make that change before I merge it. 15:44:23 Pierre: Fine with me. 15:44:28 Glenn: Thanks for pointing that out. 15:44:41 Pierre: I'm hunting for every reference to section 5 for vocabulary. 15:46:55 Glenn: I'll make those changes and merge if there are no objections. 15:47:03 Nigel: Yes, I've heard no objections, go ahead and do that please. 15:47:13 .. If more issues get raised on the merged text we can address them later. 15:48:03 Topic: Specify fixed, implied semantics for xlink:type and xlink:actuate (#1039). ttml2#1050 15:48:11 github: https://github.com/w3c/ttml2/pull/1050 15:49:43 Glenn: The only comment is to ask if there are any tests, and I don't think we can test it. 15:49:52 Nigel: That's right, so this is a normative change that we cannot test? 15:50:09 Glenn: That's right, it's an ambiguity being resolved. If it is possible to demonstrate that an implementation 15:50:18 .. ignores this, but how could you test it? 15:50:32 .. You could create content but only that implementation could look at the results and see if they 15:50:44 .. satisfy the test. We could create the test without the sample output. 15:51:03 Nigel: We don't always define the test output as a sample though? 15:51:21 Glenn: We always do for presentation tests. There's no validation to be done because it's never specified. 15:51:38 .. I think we should go ahead and accept it and we will have to describe this as a category of substantive 15:51:55 .. changes that we cannot test except by reference to undefined external behaviour. 15:52:30 Nigel: I think that's true, but if we can't test it doesn't that mean we don't need the change? 15:52:47 Glenn: No it's important to clarify it. In the future we might define the actuate and type attributes, in which 15:52:56 .. case we would have something testable. 15:53:12 Nigel: Can we move on then? 15:53:34 Glenn: Can you add an approval? 15:53:44 Nigel: Yes. Just for the record, any objection to merging this normative change without a test? 15:53:50 group: [no objection] 15:54:01 RESOLUTION: Merge this pull request 15:54:10 Nigel: I've approved it. 15:54:12 Glenn: Thank you. 15:54:35 Topic: Prevent font element from overriding generic font family (#1042). ttml2#1049 15:54:43 github: https://github.com/w3c/ttml2/pull/1049 15:55:04 pal_ has joined #tt 15:58:46 Nigel: I think we need language here like under tts:extent that describes errors for validation processing 15:58:57 .. and ignoring for presentation processing. 15:59:47 Glenn: If we make that change here we need to do it elsewhere in the spec too. For example 16:00:04 .. in rubyPosition, where we did not call out validation processing vs presentation processing. 16:00:15 Nigel: Yes, it would be good to make that kind of change here too. 16:00:36 Glenn: If you'd like to file an issue asking to qualify the phrase "considered an error" with "with respect 16:00:49 .. to validation processing" elsewhere in the spec, but I would rather not deal with it here. 16:00:58 Nigel: I'd rather get this right first time. 16:02:04 .. We could do that, it may generate some additional test cases. 16:02:18 Glenn: Can you take off your change request here and then deal with that in another issue and pull request? 16:02:34 Nigel: I'm a bit grumpy about this but yes, okay. 16:03:24 Topic: Meeting clsoe 16:03:29 s/so/os 16:04:24 Nigel: Thanks everyone, we're slightly over time, so I'll adjourn now. Hopefully we can fit our work into 16:04:31 .. a 1 hour meeting next week. [adjourns meeting] 16:04:34 rrsagent, make minutes 16:04:34 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2019/04/04-tt-minutes.html nigel 16:15:49 Regrets: Cyril, Andreas 16:17:33 rrsagent, make minutes 16:17:33 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2019/04/04-tt-minutes.html nigel 16:17:43 scribeOptions: -final -noEmbedDiagnostics 16:18:14 rrsagent, make minutes 16:18:14 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2019/04/04-tt-minutes.html nigel 16:18:22 github-bot, end 16:18:22 nigel, Sorry, I don't understand that command. Try 'help'. 16:18:30 github-bot, help 16:18:30 nigel, The commands I understand are: 16:18:30 help - Send this message. 16:18:30 intro - Send a message describing what I do. 16:18:31 status - Send a message with current bot status. 16:18:31 bye - Leave the channel. (You can /invite me back.) 16:18:31 end topic - End the current topic without starting a new one. 16:18:32 reboot - Make me leave the server and exit. If properly configured, I will then update myself and return. 16:18:40 github-bot, end topic 17:26:21 Zakim has left #tt 19:21:30 plh_ has joined #tt 19:27:28 plh_ has joined #tt 21:07:22 plh has joined #tt