16:01:47 RRSAgent has joined #tt 16:01:47 logging to https://www.w3.org/2020/01/30-tt-irc 16:01:50 RRSAgent, make logs Public 16:01:51 Meeting: Timed Text Working Group Teleconference 16:02:27 Previous meeting: https://www.w3.org/2020/01/23-tt-minutes.html 16:02:28 Agenda: 16:02:35 Agenda: https://github.com/w3c/ttwg/issues/91 16:02:42 scribe: nigel 16:03:01 Present: Atsushi, Cyril, Gary, Glenn, Nigel 16:03:05 Chair: Gary, Nigel 16:03:14 Regrets: Andreas 16:03:31 Topic: This meeting 16:04:39 Nigel: Today, we have IMSC 1.2 FPWD next steps, two issues/pull requests to discuss. 16:04:47 .. Plus TTML2 2nd Edition CR publication. 16:04:51 .. Is there any other business? 16:05:26 Pierre: Can we discuss WebVMT? 16:05:29 Nigel: Sure, in AOB 16:05:46 Present+ Pierre 16:06:09 Topic: Potential semantic conflict between ttp:profile and ttp:contentProfiles. imsc#506 16:06:15 github: https://github.com/w3c/imsc/issues/506 16:06:27 Nigel: Just checking in, since when we discussed this last the Editor was not present. 16:07:27 .. Did the consensus last time make sense, Pierre? Any other questions. 16:08:03 Pierre: Seems fine with me. 16:08:21 .. But why in IMSC 1.2 instead of TTML2? We have to remove the may, but if folks think a note here would be 16:08:44 .. useful that's fine. I'll change the wording a little bit but keep the intent. 16:08:55 SUMMARY: Editor to prepare Pull Request 16:10:24 Glenn: I would accept this under TTML2 in a future edition. 16:10:39 Nigel: But I wanted it sooner so suggested put it in IMSC 1.2 now and TTML2 later. 16:10:47 Glenn: There's some similar existing language in TTML already. 16:10:52 Pierre: Okay, got it, thanks. 16:11:16 Topic: Permit CSS font matching and font-face mapping imsc#517 16:11:22 github: https://github.com/w3c/imsc/pull/517 16:11:54 Pierre: I have one last editorial comment. 16:12:26 Nigel: Also Glenn raised more substantive comments, let's do those first. 16:12:42 Glenn: 1. On the font-face issue, we didn't actually discuss the font-face matter at the last meeting as 16:12:57 .. far as I recall. It doesn't make any sense at all as far as I am aware to even mention font-face because it 16:13:10 .. has no relevance to us because there is no way to refer to font-face in our context whatsoever. 16:13:25 .. We don't have any way to put font-face in our content, syntactically, so any use of it would have to be 16:13:37 .. completely out of the scope of TTML or IMSC unless I'm missing something. 16:16:55 Nigel: We did discuss font-face and the intent here is to say that using the font-face algorithm is compatible with 16:17:06 .. the TTML font matching semantics which are implementation defined. 16:17:28 Glenn: The font-face rule describes a syntax. I thought from last week we were only talking about CSS Fonts ยง5.1 16:18:42 .. The first paragraph, by itself, is perfectly fine and is exactly what I thought we agreed last week, and I think it is 16:18:54 .. sufficient. Anything else is extraneous. The implementation can decide all the details. 16:19:07 .. It's going overboard by putting extra hints on what the implementation might do. 16:19:29 .. You're saying "implementor, here are other things you might think about", but I don't see that as a necessary hint. 16:22:53 Nigel: I thought it is unclear what we mean unless we explain the mapping. 16:23:04 Glenn: I think implementers will find it obvious so the table is not necessary. 16:23:21 Pierre: Just for my own clarification, which paragraph are you referring to? 16:23:39 Glenn: I'm suggesting deleting the paragraph about the font-face rule, and just leaving the first new one 16:23:51 .. that says the font matching algorithm in place. 16:24:15 Pierre: That would address my comment as well. 16:24:24 .. My question was why have those two paragraphs disconnected. 16:24:35 .. From an implementer it was weird that I could use one without the other. 16:24:49 .. If the conclusion is the first one is sufficient then it would be good to keep just that one. 16:26:02 Glenn: In the note, the first sentence is already written into the text of the spec, so it isn't needed. 16:26:17 Nigel: You think the second sentence works without the first one? 16:27:59 Glenn: OK if we just remove the last sentence we could keep this. 16:28:12 .. For locality of reference, put it after the new paragraph about the font matching algorithm. 16:28:17 Nigel: That works for me. 16:29:06 Glenn: Thank you for accommodating me. 16:29:12 Nigel: Not at all, feedback very welcome. 16:29:28 Pierre: That change would address my comments too. 16:30:26 Nigel: Okay, I will implement that in the pull request. 16:30:46 SUMMARY: @nigelmegitt to amend pull request taking into account feedback from today's discussion. 16:31:01 Topic: TTML2 2nd Edition CR Publication 16:31:17 :yay: 16:31:21 Nigel: We published on the 28th as planned. Thank you to Glenn and Atsushi for making it happen. 16:32:10 -> https://www.w3.org/TR/2020/CR-ttml2-20200128/ TTML2 2nd Edition CR 16:32:55 Nigel: There's a question, whether to point people looking at 1st Ed Rec at this new 2nd Ed CR. 16:33:06 Glenn: Tricky question. I can't recall what we did with TTML1 16:33:13 Nigel: I don't think this facility existed then. 16:33:22 Glenn: It may have for 3rd Ed, which was late 2018. 16:33:42 .. I'm of 2 minds. I wouldn't want it to warn to say the Rec is obsolete. 16:34:01 .. If we did a warning I would want it to say something like "A revision is in process, look here if you want to see it" 16:34:27 Nigel: Is this something where we can control the text? 16:34:52 Atsushi: Usually when a WG updates a Rec a pop-up will be raised to note it is an old version so please look at the new version. 16:34:55 https://www.w3.org/TR/2018/PR-ttml1-20181004/ 16:35:16 .. This one says "This version is outdated!" 16:35:28 .. Do you want this popup in TTML2 1st Ed Rec to point to TTML2 CR? 16:35:49 .. I suppose if we consider the TTML1 Rec is still alive, it may be possible to keep TTML1 Rec as the latest version for TTML1. 16:35:55 Pierre: Yes, please don't touch TTML1. 16:36:02 Nigel: Agreed, this is only about TTML2 16:36:15 Glenn: The question is can we supply the text for the warning? 16:36:29 .. In this case the TTML2 1st Ed is still active. It is not outdated yet. 16:36:54 .. But it is in process of revision so we could provide a warning saying that it is in the process of revision and linking to the revision. 16:37:12 .. We would not want to say it is outdated. Please could you check to see from the publishing people if we can provide 16:37:24 .. the text of that? If they only have canned text then we may need to leave it the same. 16:37:38 Nigel: It might depend on what the canned text options are. 16:37:51 Glenn: We'd want to provide text. 16:38:08 Atsushi: That pop-up is provided by a central database so I don't think we can customise the note. 16:38:30 Glenn: Can you ask the publishing people, maybe their database has a way to include a custom message? 16:39:05 16:41:16 Atsushi: When I checked before we usually just put one line of inclusion of script. 16:41:48 Nigel: That script goes to https://www.w3.org/TR/tr-outdated-spec and the response depends on the referring document. 16:42:07 .. So Atsushi could you ask what flexibility we have in directing the server to send our own text for that, in response 16:42:10 .. to the referral? 16:42:25 Atsushi: Yes, I can ask 16:43:56 Nigel: I think our conclusion is that we would like some text, but only if we can check it in advance. 16:44:30 Atsushi: It seems all of the contents are written by JSON data from the URL - let me go back to them with this request. 16:44:34 Nigel: Thank you 16:45:13 .. In terms of this CR, I think the next steps are to work out which tests should go into the implementation report 16:45:16 .. and prepare that. 16:45:46 Glenn: I counted 30 substantive PRs going into this version (from memory) and 15 (?) of them were marked as 16:46:08 .. untestable, or as having test, I think 11 have tests and 4 are untestable. 16:46:22 .. TTV is one implementation of those 11, so that leaves 15 others that were merged prior 16:46:36 .. to our arrangement to create tests before merging, so we need to go back and create tests for the other 15. 16:46:47 .. Then we need to find another implementation for the remaining testable ones. 16:47:04 .. Of the 15 that are left some of them might end up being untestable. We haven't gone through them yet. 16:47:21 .. We do need another implementation. Right now we've written in the SOTD that we won't go to PR before 16:47:47 .. March 17 so I've already created a milestone in GitHub and marked its pending completion date as that date. 16:47:50 .. It can be changed. 16:48:03 .. We have one issue tentatively right now which is the privacy review response. 16:48:18 .. There's also a request from internationalisation to change an example to use isolate instead of embed, which 16:48:30 .. we can probably accommodate prior to Proposed Rec. 16:48:38 .. So we need to identify a possible 2nd implementation. 16:49:03 .. So we need to look into that. Previously BBC, Netflix and I believe Pierre, you guys, had done some implementation 16:49:09 .. work so perhaps we can get another implementation. 16:49:21 .. I need to look at the possibility of TTV implementing the other testable tests. 16:49:56 Nigel: Yes, good summary and reminder points about our next steps. 16:50:12 https://himorin.github.io/ttwg/TTWG-2019-spec-timeline.html 16:51:05 Atsushi: I need to update the above for TTML2. 16:51:27 Glenn: I used Philippe's tool for generating 17th March. It said Rec publishing date in April if all goes to plan, 16:51:45 .. but Atsushi should maybe generate a timeline incorporating current practice and all the steps necessary. 16:52:22 Atsushi: Also let me propose one thing on this. 16:52:44 .. For now, that timeline is put to w3.org as a single HTML5 but is it possible to have one directory to be redirected 16:53:04 .. to github.io so we can host these files in there to be published at w3.org space, like our current index.html for WG 16:53:17 Nigel: Yes of course, it would make sense to put this in the TTWG repo. 16:53:44 Atsushi: Currently only the home page redirects, but we could add a subdirectory used for us to easily edit via PR. 16:53:53 Nigel: That's a really good idea, yes please. 16:54:24 https://www.w3.org/immersive-web/ 16:54:33 Atsushi: I will send an email requesting a directory. I'm not sure what directory to use. 16:54:43 https://github.com/immersive-web/homepage 16:55:26 Nigel: I'm not sure either, maybe follow another group, or otherwise call it something like 'wip'. 16:56:00 .. Can we follow this up off-line with Atsushi, Gary and Nigel? 16:56:04 Atsushi: Yes 16:56:18 Topic: AOB - WebVMT 16:56:42 Pierre: WebVMT is a fork of WebVTT. 16:56:52 .. I'm interested in keeping all the Timed Text discussions in the same group in W3C. 16:57:02 .. Do you have any insights, maybe Gary? 16:57:24 Gary: Rob Smith is the one heading this up. 16:57:37 .. It sounds like it started off with them trying to use WebVTT for metadata. 16:57:42 Nigel: Specifically geographic metadata. 16:57:58 Gary: Yes, for tying map data to a video, like showing locations moving on a map. 16:58:12 .. It seems like it's mostly an extension rather than a full fork, but there are definitely some changes. 16:58:28 .. They potentially should be moved back to WebVTT, I don't know. 16:59:47 Nigel: Last I heard on this, it is WebVTT minus some features that Rob thought were unnecessary for the use case. 17:00:03 Pierre: It is confusing to have a proliferation of groups working on timed text. 17:00:15 .. It would be good to ask them why not join TTWG? 17:00:25 Gary: He's also working on the datacue proposal. 17:00:35 Pierre: It would be good if these were all under the same roof. 17:00:54 Gary: That makes sense. There was a question from Silvia on the M&E mailing list asking why different from WebVTT. 17:01:11 Pierre: I don't want to prevent that work, and I don't want to presume of the outcome, but also looking at what is 17:01:30 .. happening with bullet chatting, it's great to have loads of initiatives but hard to keep track of them. 17:01:34 Nigel: Sounds like W3C all over! 17:01:41 Pierre: Well indeed, it is a recurring comment. 17:01:48 Gary: It is also possible that forking is the best decision. 17:02:04 Pierre: Exactly, I don't want to make an assumption but it would be good to do it in the same group. 17:02:20 Gary: Yes, my only issue is that it is harder to trickle back good features into WebVTT. 17:02:36 Pierre: Yes, and with bullet chatting, people get excited about WebVTT because it is implemented in browsers, 17:02:53 .. but if they extend it and do it without browser implementation then they're back where they started. 17:02:55 Gary: Exactly. 17:03:04 .. They're back to implementing themselves. 17:03:21 Pierre: Exactly, I always thought that was a strange argument. 17:03:46 Nigel: Okay, that's noted, one for Gary and I to think about. I'm not sure what actions to take. 17:04:13 Topic: Meeting close. 17:04:25 Nigel: Thanks everyone. We're a little over time, so let's adjourn. [adjourns meeting] 17:04:29 zakim, end meeting 17:04:29 As of this point the attendees have been Atsushi, Cyril, Gary, Glenn, Nigel, Pierre 17:04:31 RRSAgent, please draft minutes v2 17:04:31 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2020/01/30-tt-minutes.html Zakim 17:04:34 I am happy to have been of service, nigel; please remember to excuse RRSAgent. Goodbye 17:04:38 Zakim has left #tt 17:29:01 rrsagent, make logs public 17:30:19 rrsagent, make minutes v2 17:30:19 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2020/01/30-tt-minutes.html nigel 17:40:50 s/Agenda: h/Xgenda: h 17:40:55 s/Agenda:// 17:41:02 s/Xgenda: h/Agenda: h 17:41:07 rrsagent, make minutes v2 17:41:07 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2020/01/30-tt-minutes.html nigel 17:43:00 scribeOptions: -final -noEmbedDiagnostics 17:43:01 rrsagent, make minutes v2 17:43:01 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2020/01/30-tt-minutes.html nigel 18:02:34 github-bot, end topic