15:59:34 RRSAgent has joined #tt 15:59:34 logging to https://www.w3.org/2020/02/13-tt-irc 15:59:37 RRSAgent, make logs Public 15:59:37 Meeting: Timed Text Working Group Teleconference 15:59:58 Previous meeting: https://www.w3.org/2020/02/06-tt-minutes.html 16:00:05 Agenda: https://github.com/w3c/ttwg/issues/94 16:00:27 Present: Nigel 16:00:29 Chair: Nigel 16:00:34 Regrets: Anderas 16:00:39 Regrets: Andreas 16:00:44 scribe: nigel 16:01:03 Present+ Pierre 16:02:31 Present+ Atsushi, Gary, Glenn, Cyril 16:02:54 Topic: This Meeting 16:03:18 Nigel: Today we have TTML2 2nd Ed CR work, mainly. 16:03:42 .. In AOB I'd like to raise IMSC 1.2 HR requests, which is w3c/ttwg#76 16:03:47 .. Is there any other business? 16:04:56 Glenn: Chris Lilley reopened an old issue, 1070 on TTML2. I responded, so can we add to AOB? 16:04:58 Nigel: Yes. 16:05:10 Cyril: I have a small question about shear to add too. 16:05:13 Nigel: OK, any more? 16:05:39 Topic: TTML2 2nd Edition CR 16:05:55 Nigel: First on this agenda item is the banner message on the TTML2 1st Ed Rec. 16:06:08 .. Do we have any more information about our choices here? 16:06:24 https://www.w3.org/2003/01/republishing/ 16:06:35 Atsushi: I just talked with plh on this and there is a way to update the status on the previous recommendation. 16:06:41 > 2. Permitted classes of modifications for "end state" documents 16:07:32 .. It's as per the above link, section 2. It should be possible to update the SOTD not in a banner. 16:07:41 Glenn: I think that's undesirable. I'd rather leave the status the same. 16:08:04 .. I doubt if anyone would go looking through the status for that information. They _could_ but I've never seen any 16:08:16 .. document do that before. We've not done it in TTWG before for previous documents. 16:08:39 Nigel: Just checking back, does this mean we cannot choose our own custom message? 16:08:48 Atsushi: That was the answer. 16:08:56 Nigel: Do we have a menu of the messages that already exist? 16:09:06 Atsushi: Updating the SOTD is the way to do it, as I understand. 16:09:20 Glenn: I have an alternative as indicated in my comment to issue 1070. 16:09:35 .. Chris pointed out in that issue that we had not put anything in the Errata page for the current Rec. 16:09:48 .. I suggested in my comment to him that we could put a link in the Errata page for the current Rec pointing at 16:09:57 .. the new CR, and that if we wanted to we could also point at the changes document. 16:10:05 Nigel: That sounds quite neat to me. 16:10:19 Glenn: We don't want to list in the errata document for the existing Rec all the changes but we could 16:10:30 .. put a link in it to the new CR work and the changes, making it possible for people to find it that way. 16:10:40 .. That would be better than changing the SOTD of the current Rec in my opinion. 16:10:52 .. It would also probably satisfy Chris's comment and we could reclose #1070. 16:11:08 Nigel: Does anyone see any problems with that idea? 16:11:19 Atsushi: I don't think there is any issue to put something in the Errata page. 16:11:45 Glenn: In that case I will create an edited version of the current Rec's Errata page and create a pull request for updating 16:12:00 .. that and once it's put into master then Atsushi can update it on /TR. 16:12:26 Atsushi: I can deploy that, yes. 16:12:52 Nigel: OK, sounds good, thank you. Any more on this part of the agenda? 16:12:58 .. No, then moving on: 16:13:23 Topic: TTML2 2nd Ed Tests 16:13:40 Nigel: I'm wondering if we can iterate through these and assign the work. 16:13:50 Glenn: I've identified 11 PRs that need tests and I'm working on the tests. 16:13:57 .. I can sign myself up for all of those. 16:14:06 .. Unless there are some related to audio that I can't handle. 16:14:14 .. I've created a spreadsheet that I'm working from. 16:14:23 .. I'm checking for each one if it is testable or untestable. 16:14:28 .. At the beginning stage of that process. 16:14:49 .. I will also determine if there are any I cannot handle, e.g. relating to audio, where I might want help from you for example, Nigel. 16:14:50 Nigel: OK 16:14:58 Glenn: Maybe this week would be a good week to finish those. 16:15:11 .. There are 11 PRs that I've entered into the spreadsheet that need to be addressed. 16:16:38 Nigel: Please could we make that transparent. I'd suggest opening an issue for each one in ttml2-tests repo, 16:16:53 .. so that we can record a disposition against each one, either as untestable or as needing a pull request. 16:17:11 Glenn: I don't want the extra bureaucratic overhead. 16:17:27 Nigel: I know but we need this to work together. Send me the spreadsheet if you want, and I'll open the issues. 16:17:46 Cyril: I've made a spreadsheet also. 16:18:18 .. I sent this to the mailing list. 16:18:22 Nigel: I did not notice that. 16:18:34 Glenn: I don't think that's the same thing - did you deal with PRs with no tests associated with them? 16:19:01 Cyril: I looked at all the PRs on TTML2 2nd Ed as listed on the change page, and marked them up as testable/untestable 16:19:07 .. and if testable, if a test is present or missing. 16:19:16 Glenn: OK I need to go and look at your spreadsheet as well. 16:19:28 Cyril: I thought I shared it with the group, didn't I? 16:19:37 Nigel: I don't remember seeing it, apologies if I missed it. 16:19:47 Cyril: I sent it 7 days ago. 16:20:32 .. I created the IR too: 16:20:42 -> https://www.w3.org/wiki/TimedText/TTML2SecondEditionImplementationReport TTML2 2nd Ed Implementation Report 16:22:14 Nigel: I can't see the spreadsheet. 16:22:32 Cyril: It is in my response to Glenn there's a link to a Google spreadsheet 16:22:56 -> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1oo9DtHBBn_t0Nhba4thDASibS0G5fZaJ9HkvlRXdTqo/edit#gid=0 TTML2 2nd Ed test suite analysis (Google spreadsheet) 16:23:22 Cyril: They say "untestable" because there's a label on the PR of the spec. 16:23:39 .. If it says "NO TEST" then it is missing tests, and not untestable. 16:23:59 Glenn: It sounds like you've already done the work that Nigel was asking for to share a spreadsheet. 16:24:05 .. I just need to update it. Is it writable? 16:24:10 Cyril: I can make it writeable. 16:24:33 .. I can't do it right now, I'm not in front of my computer. 16:24:38 .. I found 9 changes that require tests. 16:24:47 Glenn: I had 11, so that's close, I can tweak it as needed. 16:25:23 Nigel: I could take an action to open a test repo issue for everything that says "no test" 16:25:41 Glenn: Could you not do that please, I've been adopting a particular way of doing those issues. 16:25:45 .. I will do them, if you please. 16:25:47 Nigel: OK, sure. 16:26:00 Glenn: I'm linking them to the PRs in a specific way in descriptive terms and so forth. 16:27:15 Nigel: Back to our agenda, we have an iteration and Glenn will create the tests, except if there are any that he 16:27:26 .. needs assistance with, he will contact someone else to ask for assistance. 16:28:28 Glenn: I'm not sure if the audio changes are testable. At least one is for a feature designation but I'm not sure if 16:28:37 .. that translates into any test. I need to review the testability of it. 16:28:39 Nigel: OK 16:29:46 .. That's where we needed to get to for now. Anything else on the tests or 2nd Ed? 16:29:50 .. [silence] 16:30:05 .. OK, thank you Glenn and Cyril for taking the lead on this and preparing this data. 16:30:23 Glenn: By the way, we had put in March 17 as the no-earlier-than for requesting a PR transition. That leaves us about 16:30:55 .. a month or so from now. Skynav's implementation of TTV can be one implementation of the tests, and I think we have 16:31:04 .. most of those wrapped up, and can wrap up the remaining ones quite quickly. 16:31:24 .. That leaves one other implementation, so other folks need to step forward and do something otherwise we will 16:31:34 .. be left in a holding pattern in terms of moving forward to PR. 16:31:39 Nigel: That is correct. 16:33:31 Topic: AOB - shear 16:33:45 Cyril: My question is about the anchor point for the shear transformation. What is the origin of the coordinate 16:33:50 .. system when you apply a shear? 16:33:59 Glenn: Very good question. We did not deal with that, did we? 16:34:16 Cyril: Specifically it seems that there should be a difference for vertical text vs horizontal text. 16:34:28 .. I think for horizontal text the origin is the bottom left corner of the content box. 16:34:53 .. For left to right that is, and for right to left, probably the bottom right corner. 16:35:07 .. For vertical text, right to left, I think it should be the top right corner. 16:35:17 .. If it's top to bottom left to right then it should be the top left corner. 16:35:34 Glenn: Since we did not deal with that issue at all I think you should file a new issue for 3rd Edition. 16:35:41 Cyril: Why not an errata? 16:35:48 Glenn: This is a substantive issue first of all. 16:35:53 Cyril: We can discuss where it goes. 16:36:00 Glenn: We're not going to deal with it in 2nd Ed. 16:36:12 .. It will have different answers based on which of the shears we are talking about, 16:36:20 .. fontShear, vs lineShear vs blockShear. 16:36:25 Cyril: Yes, sure. 16:36:31 .. OK I'll open an issue. 16:36:39 Glenn: Also there are other semantics around shear we did not deal with. 16:37:12 .. For example if you are dealing with ta te chu yoko, if you are switching between vertical and horizontal and 16:37:36 .. let's say the vertical preceding a horizontal has a shear applied to it, and the horizontal has a separate shear applied to it. 16:37:48 .. In order to prevent collision, you need to add extra shear between the two, 16:37:52 .. or extra white space. 16:38:06 Cyril: The context is IMSC 1.1 interop testing. 16:38:21 Glenn: The reason I raise the issue about collision is I discovered this when we implemented TTPE. 16:38:38 .. In different contexts when you're dealing with fontShear as opposed to lineShear or blockShear, you can get 16:38:56 .. collisions between glyph areas that are unintended. To make it visually acceptable 16:39:02 .. the rendering engine needs to add white space. 16:39:08 .. We ended up inserting additional white space. 16:39:13 .. This is outside of the spec completely. 16:39:22 .. There is some really tricky implementation space stuff in order to 16:39:29 .. come up with acceptable renderings around shear. 16:39:40 .. I'm pointing this out because if you dive down the rabbit-hole with shear, 16:39:52 .. things get a little tricky. You're starting to do that when it comes to asking about the origin. 16:40:01 Cyril: Maybe the outcome is to leave the origin to the implementation. 16:40:08 Glenn: Sometimes that's the better option. 16:40:27 Pierre: That's only for fontShear, right? For lineShear and shear, the behaviour is well defined. 16:40:29 Glenn: I agree 16:40:41 Pierre: I'm not making a judgement call which is more pleasing. 16:40:50 .. In the case of block shear, the shear origin is well defined. 16:41:01 Glenn: The other thing that's interesting is that for lineShear, in order to keep the line length from 16:41:12 .. going outside the block area, you end up having to shorten the line length. 16:41:17 Pierre: Absolutely, that's another issue. 16:41:28 Glenn: It's another implementation trick that we didn't go into with the specification. 16:41:34 Pierre: Same thing with shear. 16:42:11 Glenn: These are all things that can produce different output with regard to interoperability. There are dragons here. 16:42:34 Pierre: I can't speak about fontShear, but with shear and lineShear, and the issue with overflow, with shear 16:42:47 .. allowing the shear line to extend the original boundaries of the line or the block, that has an impact 16:42:55 .. on interop. There are two obvious ways to deal with it: 16:42:59 .. 1. Extend the block 16:43:02 .. 2. Wrap the line 16:43:20 .. They yield pretty different results, so maybe we should have an opinion on that. 16:43:33 Cyril: If you don't extend the block then you can get clipped glyphs. 16:43:40 Pierre: Yes, exactly, which is the least desirable. 16:43:53 .. Just to add, shear is not supported by CSS so it would be good to have the discussion with the CSS WG. 16:44:12 Cyril: I am working on that, I have contacted people and am discussing it before we have something publicly available. 16:44:59 Topic: AOB - IMSC 1.2 16:45:20 Nigel: I noticed that our issue https://github.com/w3c/ttwg/issues/76 is only partially completed. 16:45:31 .. Unless I did it and failed to update the issue, I think I have work to do. 16:45:50 .. Apologies for this, I'm not sure what happened, but I plan to get onto it and make the requests for HR for IMSC 1.2 16:45:57 .. This is pretty frustrating. 16:46:44 .. Recalling Jeffrey Yaskin's response on privacy, I think he answered about IMSC 1.2 as well as TTML2, I need to check. 16:47:51 .. I really wish there was an easier way to do HR. It's pretty frustrating if we've lost 3 months. 16:48:13 Pierre: The changes for IMSC 1.2 do not warrant 3 months, which is why the Charter says should not shall have 3 months. 16:48:29 .. We should request review specifically of the changed feature. 16:48:50 .. And ask for an expedited review. Let me know how I can help, I'll be bugging you and please bug me. 16:48:55 Nigel: Thank you for that. 16:49:17 Pierre: By the way, how is it that HR doesn't start automatically? I find it confusing. 16:49:43 Nigel: I think the idea is groups can request review before publishing a WD. 16:50:00 Pierre: Why doesn't it start automatically at WD publication? We can't go prodding every group. 16:50:21 Nigel: I agree, let's ask for expedited input based on the small set of changes. 16:50:23 -> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tt/2019Nov/0011.html review from Jeffrey Yaskin on TTML and IMSC 16:51:25 Gary: It sounds like Jeffrey Yaskin has probably covered privacy already. So one less thing to do. 16:51:31 Nigel: Thank you for that Gary, that's great. 16:52:32 Topic: Meeting close 16:53:00 Nigel: Thank you everyone, we've completed our agenda. Have a good week everyone. [adjourns meeting] 16:53:05 rrsagent, make minutes v2 16:53:05 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2020/02/13-tt-minutes.html nigel 16:53:14 github-bot, end topic 16:56:05 github-bot has joined #tt 17:02:53 s/github-bot, end topic//g 17:03:13 scribeOptions: -final -noEmbedDiagnostics 17:03:23 s/AOB - IMSC 1.2/AOB - IMSC 1.2 HR 17:03:28 zakim, end meeting 17:03:28 As of this point the attendees have been Nigel, Pierre, Atsushi, Gary, Glenn, Cyril 17:03:30 RRSAgent, please draft minutes v2 17:03:30 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2020/02/13-tt-minutes.html Zakim 17:03:33 I am happy to have been of service, nigel; please remember to excuse RRSAgent. Goodbye 17:03:38 Zakim has left #tt