16:02:00 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #tt
16:02:00 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2020/02/27-tt-irc
16:02:05 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #tt
16:02:13 <nigel> nigel has joined #tt
16:02:46 <nigel> zakim, start meeting
16:02:46 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
16:02:47 <Zakim> Meeting: Timed Text Working Group Teleconference
16:03:06 <nigel> Agenda: https://github.com/w3c/ttwg/issues/96
16:04:04 <nigel> Previous meeting: https://www.w3.org/2020/02/20-tt-minutes.html
16:04:24 <nigel> Present: Atsushi, Cyril, Gary, Nigel, Pierre
16:04:33 <nigel> Chair: Gary, Nigel
16:04:37 <nigel> scribe: nigel
16:04:41 <nigel> Regrets: Andreas
16:04:53 <nigel> Regrets+ Glenn
16:05:09 <nigel> Topic: This meeting
16:05:23 <nigel> Nigel: For the agenda today we have IMSC 1.2 HR and I will mention the CfC.
16:05:31 <nigel> .. Also TTML2 2nd Ed CR Tests etc.
16:05:40 <nigel> .. In AOB we currently have planning for DST changes
16:05:45 <nigel> .. Is there any other business?
16:06:20 <nigel> Atsushi: Can we look at the timeline PR on TTWG?
16:06:33 <nigel> Nigel: Yes, apologies, I should have been in touch with you about that, because I cannot preview it!
16:06:37 <nigel> .. Added to AOB.
16:06:38 <nigel> .. Any more?
16:07:20 <nigel> group: [no more]
16:07:28 <nigel> Topic: IMSC 1.2 HR
16:07:55 <nigel> Nigel: I've managed to send the message to Web Security, just before this meeting.
16:08:11 <nigel> .. Apologies for the delay - this was as discussed last week, but took me a while to get around to.
16:08:37 <nigel> .. Hopefully that will be okay. I took the cue from Philippe to tell them we don't think anything
16:08:44 <nigel> .. needs doing, and let them tell us if they disagree.
16:09:01 <nigel> .. That completes the HR requests.
16:09:09 <cyril> cyril has joined #tt
16:09:17 <nigel> .. I don't think there have been any responses.
16:09:48 <nigel> .. I see that TAG has scheduled IMSC 1.2 review for 2020-03-03.
16:09:58 <nigel> .. That falls within our CfC review period for publication of IMSC 1.2 CR.
16:10:25 <nigel> .. The other thing to note is I sent out the CfC for IMSC 1.2 CR publication shortly before this call.
16:10:37 <nigel> .. I made two proposals not discussed directly last week.
16:11:17 <nigel> -> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tt/2020Feb/0017.html CfC for IMSC 1.2 CR publication
16:11:36 <nigel> .. The first is the closure date for comments, which I set at 2020-04-16, as the earliest permitted date
16:11:42 <nigel> .. being 4 weeks after CR publication.
16:11:59 <nigel> .. If anyone thinks we should extend that please say as soon as we can.
16:12:11 <nigel> Cyril: I don't know if we should extend it, but I would like to propose adding a new
16:12:24 <nigel> .. feature to IMSC 1.2 adding the fontShear attribute.
16:12:30 <nigel> .. I can make a more concrete proposal.
16:12:35 <nigel> .. Is that okay within this CfC.
16:12:45 <nigel> c/CfC./CfC?
16:12:55 <nigel> Pierre: I think the challenge is that the CR process is still pretty heavy.
16:13:03 <nigel> .. We can not go to CR until we have all the features nailed.
16:13:14 <nigel> .. But we cannot also say to hold up CR until all the features are submitted,
16:13:19 <nigel> .. otherwise we'll never be done.
16:13:30 <nigel> .. I guess the question for you is what is your drop-dead date to have the proposal in?
16:13:37 <nigel> Cyril: I can have the proposal in by next week.
16:13:46 <nigel> Pierre: Then would the feature be implemented or at risk?
16:13:58 <nigel> Cyril: We implement fontShear today in our renderer. Is the question about browsers?
16:14:11 <nigel> Pierre: I mean the resources to meet the CR exit criteria, i.e. implementation experience.
16:14:22 <nigel> Cyril: Because it is in TTML2 already I don't think we need to test anything more.
16:14:34 <nigel> .. The only question is if there is consensus in adding the feature, and
16:14:45 <nigel> .. that may come down to "can it be implemented in browsers?" because I
16:14:55 <nigel> .. don't think we can include it otherwise.
16:15:08 <nigel> Pierre: I agree. There's an obvious fallback of oblique which is supported in browsers.
16:15:24 <nigel> Cyril: I am having side discussions with various people in CSS WG to see if
16:15:32 <nigel> .. we can get the necessary features implemented.
16:15:43 <nigel> .. The feedback was that implementing lineShear is too complex and not necessarily
16:15:51 <nigel> .. in line with what other people expect when they do shearing in print
16:16:03 <nigel> .. and typography. The second feedback is that if they are ready to adjust
16:16:16 <nigel> .. the specification for font-style: oblique with angle to match our fontShear feature.
16:16:28 <nigel> .. fontShear is acceptable as long as combined characters are sheared properly,
16:16:38 <nigel> .. and so are rubys and vertical characters. They are willing to adjust the CSS spec
16:16:47 <nigel> .. for that. So this means to me that I see a way forward to have better shearing
16:16:59 <nigel> .. than with IMSC 1.1 shear, and I would like if possible to have that in IMSC 1.2.
16:17:19 <nigel> Pierre: We have to really make sure it is the right thing to do, and I'm not objecting
16:17:22 <nigel> .. to the proposal at all.
16:17:33 <nigel> Cyril: I agree Pierre, and that's why I wanted to propose something for next week.
16:17:44 <nigel> Pierre: Maybe the proposal is to delay the CfC until next week.
16:19:54 <nigel> Nigel: As Chair, this is really late in the process. I'm tempted to say too late.
16:20:04 <nigel> .. The approach for publication that the group agreed on a while ago was to try
16:20:21 <nigel> .. to meet publication schedules not feature sets, so the implication there is that
16:20:34 <nigel> .. we should say the feature set for 1.2 is closed and this should be added to the
16:20:40 <nigel> .. next iteration, which would be 1.3.
16:20:54 <nigel> .. That's not to say we can't delay 1.2 and add this, but the group should really
16:21:00 <nigel> .. be aware of the impact.
16:21:07 <nigel> Cyril: I did warn the group a couple of weeks ago.
16:21:33 <nigel> Pierre: A real concern following up on what Nigel brought up is that by deferring
16:21:41 <nigel> .. CR we open the door for other proposals to be made, which might also
16:21:49 <nigel> .. be awesome, and then we'll never be done. That's a real concern.
16:21:58 <nigel> .. I'd much rather stick to what we hoped or planned to do initially which was
16:22:10 <nigel> .. a yearly release, and avoid rushing things at the last minute, where
16:22:16 <nigel> .. unavoidably we will make mistakes.
16:22:27 <nigel> .. So Cyril another thing to consider is closing off IMSC 1.2 and immediately
16:22:38 <nigel> .. starting on IMSC 1.3 with this proposal in the requirements.
16:22:54 <nigel> .. Then 1.2 makes its way through the process and we concentrate on 1.3
16:23:00 <nigel> .. and make it really work.
16:23:15 <nigel> .. In terms of timing, if we start on 1.3 today, in practice it will not take that
16:23:22 <nigel> .. much more time than if we start futzing with 1.2.
16:23:53 <nigel> Nigel: Another question for Cyril is if there is a timeline driver that means
16:24:02 <nigel> .. this feature has to be in 1.2 and cannot wait until 1.3
16:24:17 <nigel> Cyril: Not specifically, but we want to do the fontShear now. Waiting for 1.3
16:24:28 <nigel> .. would I think be too late. I understand the timeline impact of putting it in 1.2.
16:24:45 <nigel> .. The feature I am seeking to add is very minor and already in TTML2.
16:25:16 <nigel> .. I could propose the PR today within the CfC period.
16:25:24 <nigel> Pierre: We also would need to update the requirements.
16:25:28 <nigel> Cyril: Yes I could do that too.
16:26:05 <nigel> Pierre: I'm concerned about the impact if others think our deadlines for requirements don't really apply.
16:26:15 <nigel> .. They could come and also ask for new features.
16:26:46 <nigel> .. We might fall back into the trap we've been in before where we're never done.
16:27:03 <nigel> .. This is a process issue in W3C, where the latency between Recs is many months.
16:30:35 <nigel> Nigel: Can I suggest that you think about how hard the requirement is to get it into 1.2 Cyril, and let us know.
16:30:42 <nigel> Cyril: What is the impact on the CfC?
16:31:06 <nigel> Nigel: If you really need it in 1.2 then I guess you're raising an issue or objecting to the CfC.
16:31:31 <nigel> .. Hopefully we can resolve this without too much argument.
16:32:04 <nigel> Pierre: If we do this, then we are saying we don't really have a process for issuing IMSC regularly.
16:33:29 <nigel> Cyril: I'm not asking for a delay to 1.2
16:33:43 <nigel> Nigel: I don't believe a delay would be avoidable if we add a new substantive change at this time.
16:33:58 <nigel> .. I think it would be an absolute minimum of 4 weeks and it would be hard to keep it that low.
16:34:17 <nigel> Pierre: I think the unfair question is what delay can the market tolerate?
16:34:41 <nigel> .. If you were to say IMSC 1.2 is never going to get commercial acceptance unless it has that feature,
16:34:54 <nigel> .. that's different from saying it would be nice to have but the industry can wait 6 months for IMSC 1.3.
16:35:20 <nigel> Cyril: I think Netflix would do this: the font feature is interesting but we would not rush into its adoption.
16:35:36 <nigel> .. Proper shearing is something we would need. I see faster adoption if IMSC 1.2 has fontShear than if
16:35:43 <nigel> .. it only has the current #font feature.
16:35:57 <nigel> Pierre: Trying to translate, you're saying that from a Netflix perspective, IMSC 1.2 is not useful,
16:36:02 <nigel> .. compared to IMSC 1.1?
16:36:17 <nigel> Cyril: I wouldn't be that strong. We don't have use cases for downloadable fonts at the moment,
16:36:20 <nigel> .. though it may be useful.
16:36:26 <nigel> Pierre: Thanks for clarifying.
16:36:35 <nigel> .. I hear you, I think it makes sense to delay IMSC 1.2.
16:36:47 <nigel> .. If we go down that path and we suddenly get a bunch of new requirements and IMSC 1.2
16:36:57 <nigel> .. is suddenly a year away, ...
16:38:01 <nigel> Nigel: I must admit when I published the CfC I did not realise it might be controversial.
16:38:09 <nigel> .. I didn't realise this from last week's discussion.
16:39:07 <nigel> Nigel: Cyril, we need to move on, can I ask that you send the proposal to the group
16:39:12 <nigel> .. and we'll cover it next week?
16:39:26 <nigel> Pierre: Please could you make a pull request on the requirements document and I will take care of the rest?
16:39:29 <cyril> https://www.w3.org/TR/imsc-1.1-reqs/
16:39:36 <nigel> Cyril: Okay. Is it this document? Oh no that's 1.1.
16:39:44 <cyril> https://w3c.github.io/imsc-vnext-reqs/
16:39:53 <nigel> .. This one?
16:39:58 <nigel> Nigel: Yeah I think so.
16:40:15 <nigel> .. I think that is the right repo, let's do the details offline.
16:40:21 <nigel> Cyril: Okay I have it.
16:40:48 <nigel> Nigel: Before we move on from IMSC, the other proposal I made that we did not discuss
16:41:04 <nigel> .. was the exit criteria. I copied this from IMSC 1.1 and amended the references.
16:41:17 <nigel> .. Please check this and let me know if you think anything needs to change there.
16:41:56 <nigel> Topic: TTML2 Tests
16:42:09 <nigel> Nigel: Given the time, and Glenn's absence, I propose to move straight onto AOB.
16:42:17 <nigel> Topic: AOB - Upcoming DST switch
16:43:30 <nigel> Nigel: Please see https://github.com/w3c/ttwg/issues/103
16:43:50 <nigel> .. The options are there as comments, please upvote those you would prefer,
16:44:00 <nigel> .. or downvote any that would cause you problems.
16:45:13 <nigel> .. Then the Chairs will make a call on or by ... When would be good, Gary?
16:45:25 <nigel> Gary: next week's call?
16:45:29 <nigel> Nigel: That works for me.
16:45:43 <nigel> Gary: Gives enough notice before the change.
16:45:57 <nigel> Pierre: Looks like a tie on the poll right now.
16:46:04 <nigel> Gary: The Chairs are tie-breakers!
16:46:10 <nigel> Pierre: Unless they're split too!
16:47:11 <nigel> Topic: Timeline Pull request
16:47:26 <nigel> github: https://github.com/w3c/ttwg/pull/98
16:48:01 <nigel> Nigel: Thanks for this Atsushi, it's a PR to create a page for our publication timelines,
16:48:12 <nigel> .. which I didn't finish reviewing because I couldn't work out how to preview it.
16:48:36 <nigel> .. Part of the reason why was because it is from your fork of the repo I think.
16:49:12 <atsushi> https://ttml-w3c.himor.in/TTWG-2019-spec-timeline.html
16:49:23 <nigel> Atsushi: Yes. [thinks] I have copied it to here ^
16:49:43 <nigel> Nigel: Fantastic, thank you, I will review that and add comments, but probably just approve it.
16:50:09 <nigel> Atsushi: we should merge this as soon as possible and then open issues for corrections.
16:51:17 <nigel> Nigel: Okay I will approve this so we can merge and then make changes as needed. That's a good call.
16:51:23 <nigel> .. Thank you. I'll do it shortly after this meeting.
16:51:44 <nigel> github-bot, end topic
16:52:13 <nigel> Topic: Meeting close
16:52:33 <nigel> Nigel: Thanks everyone, we've completed our agenda.
16:52:41 <nigel> .. Please let us know any agenda topics for next week by Tuesday.
16:52:50 <nigel> .. I guess we'll be talking about fontShear in IMSC 1.2.
16:53:14 <nigel> Cyril: I just opened a issue on the requirements, and I'm about to do the pull request.
16:53:18 <nigel> Nigel: OK, thank you.
16:53:40 <nigel> .. Thanks everyone, let's adjourn. See you next week. [adjourns meeting]
16:54:25 <nigel> zakim, end meeting
16:54:25 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been Atsushi, Cyril, Gary, Nigel, Pierre
16:54:27 <Zakim> RRSAgent, please draft minutes v2
16:54:27 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2020/02/27-tt-minutes.html Zakim
16:54:30 <Zakim> I am happy to have been of service, nigel; please remember to excuse RRSAgent.  Goodbye
16:54:34 <Zakim> Zakim has left #tt
17:21:41 <nigel> s|c/CfC./CfC?||
17:21:46 <nigel> s/CfC./CfC?
17:23:54 <nigel> s|github-bot, end topic||g
17:24:00 <nigel> rrsagent, make minutes v2
17:24:00 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2020/02/27-tt-minutes.html nigel
17:24:47 <atsushi> s/I have copied/I have temporary copied/
17:25:48 <atsushi> ah, just wanted to make sure my copy for spec-timeline will not be persistent...
17:28:21 <nigel> scribeOption: -final -noEmbedDiagnostics
17:28:25 <nigel> rrsagent, make minutes v2
17:28:25 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2020/02/27-tt-minutes.html nigel
17:29:15 <nigel> s|scribeOption: -final -noEmbedDiagnostics||
17:29:22 <nigel> scribeOptions: -final -noEmbedDiagnostics
17:31:10 <nigel> s/ah, just wanted to make sure my copy for spec-timeline will not be persistent...//
17:31:14 <nigel> rrsagent, make minutes v2
17:31:14 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2020/02/27-tt-minutes.html nigel
17:31:42 <nigel> github-bot, end topic
18:04:29 <nigel> nigel has joined #tt
18:05:16 <nigel> nigel has changed the topic to: TTWG Teleconference. Agenda for 2020-03-05 1600 UTC meeting: https://github.com/w3c/ttwg/issues/99
18:15:48 <nigel> nigel has joined #tt