See also: IRC log
<nigel> scribe: nigel
<scribe> scribe: cyril
nigel: next week's meeting we
have regrets from Nigel, Philippe and Pierre
... so I propose to cancel next week's meeting
cyril: +1
nigel: ok cancelled
... today we have charter, profile registry, webvtt IR
... TTML2 and 3 PR
pal: I'd like to talk about
roadmap and requirements
... I'd like to work on IMSC next and would like to know what
the plan is
<plh> https://github.com/w3c/strategy/issues/175
plh: I have an FYI
... we will look at subtitles and VR
... some of you may be interested, just watch the issue
nigel: we'll come back to this topic later
nigel: I've not seen any
comment
... cyril raised 71
... but we want to publish now
cyril: I'm fine with publishing and republishing when issue 71 is resolved
nigel: 2 weeks ago we recorded
the resolution to publish it
... so we are at the end of our review period
... so plh can publish it
<nigel> scribe: nigel
github: https://github.com/w3c/tt-profile-registry/issues/71
Cyril: I discussed this with Mike
and think he has the same view as me. We can discuss this on a
call when
... all of I, Mike and Glenn are on the call.
Nigel: Okay, let's come back to this another day
<cyril> scribe: cyril
nigel: gary sent responses on the Japanese requirements
gkatsev: there are some features
and some are missing
... I want to work on adding them but it shouldn't block the
current process
nigel: what do you mean?
... are there features in the document that have no test?
... we need to make sure that we have tests and should include
them in the IR
gkatsev: there are Japanese
features that are necessary but not included in current WebVTT
and that should be added in the future
... text-emphasis is not included in the white list
nigel: I was concerned about features that are but not in the tests
gkatsev: yes, those tests should be added
plh: I reached out to APA
... to double check if they have anything to say about the
features at-risk
... that's done
... the period ends may 2nd, and unless anything comes up, we
should push PR after may 2nd and push any new feature to
v2
... APA are aware of it but did not send response yet
... regarding Japanese, we may want to reach out to the i18n
group and see if they are ok with delaying the missing features
to v2
... obviously, there is work to do between now and may
2nd
... I'm trying to get everything aligned so that we are in a
good position after may 2nd
nigel: anything else to know regarding progress on the IR
gkatsev: no
nigel: since Glenn is not there,
I don't know if we can tackle these
... the issues are https://github.com/w3c/ttml2/issues/1034
... and the PR https://github.com/w3c/ttml2/pull/1054
pal: the one I'm really concerned about is 1043
<plh> TT Registry
nigel: we are in a good shape I think
<nigel> https://w3c.github.io/charter-timed-text/
nigel: the latest draft is simplified quite a lot
plh: I did not review but I like
the spirit
... basically what matters is the scope section
... to make sure there is no overlap between groups
nigel: some sections need staff
input
... dates, drafts that we use a starting points ...
plh: I should have an action item
to have a pass at it
... for example some sentences from our template have been
removed and should be added back (security and
accessibility)
... also section numbering consistency is greatly
appreciated
<plh> https://rawgit.com/w3c/charter-drafts/gh-pages/charter-template.html
<plh> Each specification should contain a section detailing all known security and privacy implications for implementers, Web authors, and end users.
plh: in the success criteria section, there are 2 important sentences that should not be removed
pal: it's present
nigel: not in that form
plh: I see also that you have an
accessibility
... so that's fine by me
... I'll still renumber sections
... you should raise an issue against the charter
template
... we can't let one group change the charter, we should change
the template
pal: your request is to move the entire success criteria in the scope section
plh: yes
nigel: the plan is to send it for AC review beginning of may
nigel: some of the deliverables
that we have in our requirements need new documents
... live contributions of TTML and Audio Descriptions
... I have internal draft
... for live contribution
... I'll probably be asking for a repo in some weeks
... on the Audio Description Profile of TTML2
... I've reconvened the community group
... and we had a successful meeting in march
... I'm expecting to apply editorial changes in the next few
weeks
... and we can use that as a starting point for the charter and
a WD from this group
cyril: I have the plan to write a spec on Karaoke
nigel: the other one is XR, VR,
360
... I'm not aware any document being written
cyril: what about the extended use of fonts for images
nigel: that certainly forms one
potential solution for the problem
... I think we need an explainer for these
pal: in the case of IMSC 1.1, we
created a formal req doc
... and then a draft for IMSC 1.1
... here we do not have a req doc
... is the absence of a req doc going to block the process?
nigel: it's good practice to have it
pal: will it be a blocker?
... I can be happy with either
... I liked IMSC1.1's process
... but if we don't say it must, we're not going to do it
nigel: I don't think it's a
blocker in terms of process
... it's our choice
... but it's not our choice to write an explainer
cyril: I don't understand the explainer
nigel: groups like tag need an explainer in order to review work
<nigel> TAG Explainers
nigel: and we need tag
review
... since it's needed, it's good to have that at the
beginning
... it's really basic, but it's a good idea
cyril: thanks
nigel: turning that into a
lightweight requirements doc would be simple
... the one piece for which we have reqs is the Audio
Description Profile
<nigel> scribe: nigel
Cyril: I agree with Pierre we
need to move faster on these.
... Deadline for 1st Explainer draft and 1st spec draft?
Nigel: Spec or Requirements draft?
Cyril: You said we can derive the requirements from the explainer, so we don't need that now or at all?
Nigel: I imagined we would create a dry requirements document using the explainer as motivation.
Cyril: I don't really care about
the requirements doc, I will do it if needed but it seems only
the explainer and the spec
... are required documents. Two should be enough.
Nigel: I'm prepared to look at the explainers and see if they are adequate for use as requirements.
Cyril: Fair enough.
... Back to Pierre's comments, if we want a specification by
the end of the year we should have started already.
... Having a deadline is probably helpful.
Nigel: OK, any proposals for a deadline?
Pierre: Looking at IMSC 1.2 (I
guess) do we need an explainer or do the issues suffice?
... One requirement is inline display of textual elements that
cannot be expressed using common fonts.
... One solution is images, another is custom fonts. I'm
proposing that we go down the path of custom fonts and
... pursue that as far as we can and see if it doesn't work
because that is something already supported by other
timed
... text systems and has least impact on the spec.
... My inclination would be to go down that path for IMSC 1.2
and I have started the editing work in that direction
... based on issue 472.
... If some folk still feel they must have inline images like
SVG or bitmap then that's going to be a longer discussion
... because I know there are some users fundamentally opposed
to any form of images in Text profile documents.
Nigel: I think for IMSC it makes sense to duplicate the process for IMSC 1.1 and create a requirements document.
Pierre: I think we can do that in 3 weeks. We have to have a set of baseline requirements documents and explainers.
Cyril: Sure
Nigel: That aligns nicely with
the goal of sending the Charter for review at the beginning of
May.
... (3 weeks is May 2).
Pierre: Also in the back of my head I'm wondering if we need TTML3 this year.
Nigel: Yes, there's not a huge
set of changes that warrants a major point release, we could do
everything in TTML2,
... even if that's TTML 2.1.
Pierre: Yes, keep TTML3 on the
charter for sure, but the current set of changes is small and
may grow so we may want
... to publish it next year instead.
Cyril: Yes, I think the
extensions and IMSC 1.2 are important, but there is not a
pressing list of urgent needs for TTML3 right now.
... I think we need to discuss this in our next call in 2
weeks.
Nigel: Yes.
Nigel: Thanks everyone, let's adjourn, see you again in 2 weeks time. [adjourns meeting]