IRC log of tt on 2020-03-05
Timestamps are in UTC.
- 16:00:46 [RRSAgent]
- RRSAgent has joined #tt
- 16:00:47 [RRSAgent]
- logging to https://www.w3.org/2020/03/05-tt-irc
- 16:00:49 [Zakim]
- RRSAgent, make logs Public
- 16:00:50 [Zakim]
- Meeting: Timed Text Working Group Teleconference
- 16:01:59 [atai2]
- atai2 has joined #tt
- 16:02:05 [nigel]
- Previous meeting: https://www.w3.org/2020/02/27-tt-minutes.html
- 16:02:07 [nigel]
- scribe: nigel
- 16:02:21 [nigel]
- Present: Andreas, Cyril, Gary, Pierre, Nigel
- 16:02:29 [nigel]
- Chair: Gary, Nigel
- 16:02:35 [nigel]
- Regrets: none
- 16:02:49 [nigel]
- Agenda: https://github.com/w3c/ttwg/issues/99
- 16:02:57 [nigel]
- Present+ Atsushi
- 16:03:07 [atsushi]
- present+
- 16:03:23 [nigel]
- Topic: This meeting
- 16:03:56 [nigel]
- Nigel: Lots to cover today - IMSC 1.2 feature requests, IMSC 1.2 CR CfC, TTML2 CR Tests,
- 16:04:02 [nigel]
- .. and DST switch.
- 16:04:10 [nigel]
- Present+ Glenn
- 16:04:30 [nigel]
- .. Is there any other business to cover, or particular points to cover not listed on the agenda?
- 16:04:45 [nigel]
- group: [none]
- 16:04:59 [nigel]
- Topic: IMSC 1.2 New feature requests
- 16:05:54 [glenn]
- glenn has joined #tt
- 16:06:25 [nigel]
- Nigel: We have recently had 3 new feature requests for IMSC 1.2.
- 16:06:45 [nigel]
- .. We need to decide if we go for CR based on the IMSC 1.2 FPWD or do editorial work
- 16:06:49 [nigel]
- .. to support some of these feature requests.
- 16:07:01 [nigel]
- Cyril: Timeline of Rec - assuming most aggressive schedule, is Rec in 4-5 months
- 16:07:03 [nigel]
- .. reasonable?
- 16:07:08 [atsushi]
- https://w3c.github.io/spec-releases/milestones/?fpwd=2019-11-28
- 16:11:00 [nigel]
- Nigel: 28 days for PR from CR, assuming we have no tests to complete, then a few weeks
- 16:11:09 [nigel]
- .. to REC. The hold up might be the call for exclusions period.
- 16:11:45 [nigel]
- Atsushi: The Call for Exclusion period is 60 days. For IMSC 1.2 this would be completed on April 26.
- 16:12:44 [nigel]
- Nigel: In that case the period would be 2 months before Rec.
- 16:12:50 [nigel]
- Cyril: Assuming all transitions would go well.
- 16:13:10 [nigel]
- .. I think the CfC still has a week to run, then the transitions have to happen.
- 16:13:27 [nigel]
- .. From a Netflix perspective if IMSC 1.2 is going to be published in more than 3 months (roughly)
- 16:13:44 [nigel]
- .. then we will not insist on having the feature in IMSC 1.2 because we will not be able to change our plans anyway.
- 16:13:58 [nigel]
- Nigel: Confused - do you mean less than 3 months?
- 16:14:13 [nigel]
- Cyril: let's say we add fontShear to IMSC 1.2 today. If Rec publication would be more than 3
- 16:14:25 [nigel]
- .. months from now it wouldn't fit Netflix timeline so we would not insist on that.
- 16:14:37 [nigel]
- .. We still want the feature but we would wait for the next version.
- 16:14:46 [nigel]
- .. Maybe I was a little over-optimistic before.
- 16:15:42 [nigel]
- Nigel: For me that is a clear steer that we should proceed with IMSC 1.2 as is, and
- 16:15:56 [nigel]
- .. soon open up for new requirements for IMSC 1.3 including the three recently raised,
- 16:16:11 [nigel]
- .. which simplifies things a lot. Any views from others in the group?
- 16:16:33 [nigel]
- group: [silence]
- 16:16:45 [nigel]
- Nigel: I think silence means everyone agrees that is the right answer.
- 16:16:47 [nigel]
- Pierre: Yes.
- 16:17:44 [nigel]
- Nigel: Thanks for reminding us of the CfC Cyril. That has 1 week to run, and currently
- 16:17:47 [nigel]
- .. no objections.
- 16:17:54 [nigel]
- -> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tt/2020Feb/0017.html Call for Consensus to publish IMSC 1.2 CR
- 16:19:13 [nigel]
- Nigel: We now have the choice of iterating through the three new issues to register that
- 16:19:20 [nigel]
- .. we will consider them for the next version.
- 16:19:30 [nigel]
- Pierre: I don't think we should rush ahead with those - there may be impacts on TTML2
- 16:19:39 [nigel]
- .. and CSS, so we cannot make a judgement call now.
- 16:19:52 [nigel]
- .. There may be some that we decided not to do in the past because they are too hard.
- 16:20:00 [nigel]
- .. We need to come prepared to discuss them with plenty of time.
- 16:20:19 [nigel]
- Nigel: OK, this is the sort of thing where a face to face meeting (if we can have those)
- 16:20:24 [nigel]
- .. would be quite useful.
- 16:22:13 [nigel]
- Nigel: I will add a note offline to the new issues saying we mentioned them in today's
- 16:22:25 [nigel]
- .. call and will consider them for future versions of IMSC 1.2, etc.
- 16:22:41 [nigel]
- Pierre: Thanks.
- 16:23:09 [nigel]
- Nigel: The status of the CfC at the moment is that it still stands.
- 16:23:28 [nigel]
- Topic: TTML2 2nd Edition CR Publication - Tests
- 16:24:14 [nigel]
- Nigel: Thanks to everyone, chiefly Glenn, who has worked on the ttml2-tests issues.
- 16:24:41 [nigel]
- .. There are some where we need to agree we don't need tests, and others where I've
- 16:24:46 [nigel]
- .. been insistent that we do need tests.
- 16:24:57 [nigel]
- Glenn: I can accommodate the request for those tests.
- 16:25:00 [nigel]
- Nigel: That makes me happy.
- 16:25:10 [nigel]
- Glenn: I can make one of the issues marked as not testable as testable.
- 16:25:20 [nigel]
- .. I've gone through and created issues for them and will now make a pass at
- 16:25:31 [nigel]
- .. creating tests - that's my test for this coming week, and I will try to deal with
- 16:25:35 [nigel]
- .. the reopened issue 200.
- 16:25:49 [nigel]
- .. If I get through those then I will also make a stab at getting one set of implementations
- 16:26:03 [nigel]
- .. done on TTT/TTV/TTPE so we'll see where that stands this time next week.
- 16:26:51 [nigel]
- Nigel: I wonder if we can seek group agreement for things we don't need to test right now.
- 16:27:04 [nigel]
- Glenn: Unless someone disagrees, then there are no objectiosn.
- 16:27:10 [nigel]
- s/iosn/ions
- 16:27:40 [nigel]
- Nigel: I agree, let's highlight the issues are open and ask people to review them.
- 16:27:46 [nigel]
- -> https://github.com/w3c/ttml2-tests/issues TTML2 tests
- 16:27:57 [nigel]
- Cyril: Can we recap on the status?
- 16:28:10 [nigel]
- Glenn: No new PRs. I created issues for all the TTML2 PRs except those I marked as
- 16:28:12 [nigel]
- .. untestable.
- 16:28:18 [nigel]
- Cyril: How many were untestable?
- 16:28:59 [nigel]
- Glenn: I think maybe 1..2..3 - ttml2#1099, ttml2#1109 and ttml2#1096,
- 16:29:25 [nigel]
- .. and that's it at the moment.
- 16:29:32 [nigel]
- Cyril: I agree they are not testable on those three.
- 16:29:38 [nigel]
- Nigel: I think I did as well.
- 16:30:03 [nigel]
- Glenn: Overall I created 7 new issues, and I will proceed with creating PRs in the ttml2-tests
- 16:30:11 [nigel]
- .. repository specifying new tests.
- 16:30:25 [nigel]
- .. In most of those issues I created a comment that suggested a possible test approach.
- 16:30:40 [nigel]
- Nigel: For at least one where there wasn't such a comment I added one.
- 16:31:46 [nigel]
- .. I'd ask everyone to review the 2nd Ed changes and verify that they're happy with the
- 16:31:49 [nigel]
- .. proposed test approach.
- 16:32:01 [nigel]
- Glenn: I see you raised an issue on TTML2, and I found another editorial one, so we have
- 16:32:07 [nigel]
- .. a couple of changes there.
- 16:32:28 [nigel]
- Topic: Tests in general
- 16:32:31 [nigel]
- Cyril: Question about tests in general. When I was reviewing the tests, especially all the
- 16:32:42 [nigel]
- .. IMSC 1.1 tests I discovered we have lots of places where there are tests.
- 16:32:53 [nigel]
- .. I wonder if after this effort of going to CR we could create a single repo maybe with
- 16:33:04 [nigel]
- .. git submodules, and then annotating which tests should pass in which version of which
- 16:33:12 [nigel]
- .. spec would be really helpful to implementers.
- 16:33:24 [nigel]
- Glenn: Those tests are not for implementers so I would say a big N O.
- 16:33:34 [nigel]
- .. The sole purpose of the tests is to pass CR.
- 16:33:46 [nigel]
- Cyril: Still a single place for the tests would be really useful.
- 16:34:05 [nigel]
- Glenn: I agree but tests for implementers is a completely different effort and a significant
- 16:34:20 [nigel]
- .. effort too. FYI the structure of the tests there now are mostly bound to at least some
- 16:34:32 [nigel]
- .. implementations used during the verification process to get to Rec and it would let's say
- 16:35:55 [nigel]
- .. break downstream systems for verifying them, e.g. TTT if we moved them.
- 16:36:07 [nigel]
- .. If we want to maintain TTV being able to perform verification on TTML1 and TTML2 it
- 16:36:19 [nigel]
- .. would break things. If we don't care about maintaining TTV then that's a different story.
- 16:38:07 [nigel]
- Nigel: One path out of this would be to filter and copy existing tests into a new place,
- 16:38:21 [nigel]
- .. and consider the marketing value of doing that - for example we may want to put them
- 16:38:29 [nigel]
- .. into Web Platform Tests.
- 16:38:46 [nigel]
- Glenn: We should think about why we are doing this - I think it is a worthy project to make
- 16:39:01 [nigel]
- .. interoperability tests but we would need to know who would back and fund it.
- 16:39:12 [nigel]
- .. The idea of web platform tests is a good one. That project if I recall was backed by a whole
- 16:39:24 [nigel]
- .. slew of organisations and funding from facebook and others if I recall correctly, to build
- 16:39:46 [nigel]
- .. the infrastructure to do that. It's a nice idea, but it doesn't sound right to me to take
- 16:39:52 [nigel]
- .. what we have now and restructure it.
- 16:40:31 [nigel]
- Topic: AOB - DST switch
- 16:40:48 [nigel]
- github: https://github.com/w3c/ttwg/issues/103
- 16:41:10 [nigel]
- Nigel: Looking at the votes on the 3 options we have 4, 4 and 3.
- 16:41:26 [atai2]
- q+
- 16:42:05 [nigel]
- ack atai2
- 16:42:15 [nigel]
- Andreas: I signalled my presence but want to give a stronger weight to people
- 16:42:27 [nigel]
- .. who regularly join and are more involved. I see for example that Cyril has a clear
- 16:42:40 [nigel]
- .. preference for option 1. For me option 2 is better but option 1 is not impossible and
- 16:42:56 [nigel]
- .. also I have to admit that I often have blocking issues, if that helps to make a decision.
- 16:43:03 [nigel]
- Nigel: Thank you for that.
- 16:43:15 [nigel]
- Cyril: I have a preference for option 1 but could live with option 2 if needed.
- 16:45:25 [nigel]
- Nigel: What do you think Gary?
- 16:45:44 [nigel]
- Gary: I would like to leave it eventually in my local time because of a block of meetings
- 16:45:49 [nigel]
- .. on Thursday mornings.
- 16:45:59 [nigel]
- Nigel: I think it's important that Chairs can attend!
- 16:46:05 [nigel]
- .. I could make it either way.
- 16:46:31 [nigel]
- Cyril: One thing to bear in mind is that we sometimes have a 2 hour session. Which is easier
- 16:46:33 [nigel]
- .. in that case?
- 16:47:14 [nigel]
- Nigel: For me that makes no difference.
- 16:48:10 [nigel]
- Gary: If we extend an hour after that might be easier.
- 16:48:24 [nigel]
- Nigel: The hour before was a historical thing from when we used to begin at 1500 UTC.
- 16:48:30 [nigel]
- .. (actually 1100 Boston)
- 16:49:18 [nigel]
- Atsushi: I have a clash an hour before so it would be easier if we make 2 hour meetings
- 16:49:20 [nigel]
- .. extend later.
- 16:49:24 [nigel]
- Nigel: Shall we say option 2?
- 16:49:31 [nigel]
- Gary: There don't seem to be any objections.
- 16:49:46 [nigel]
- Nigel: There were no down-votes. So that's done.
- 16:49:58 [nigel]
- .. Thanks everyone, I will adjust the meetings to suit.
- 16:51:03 [nigel]
- SUMMARY: Option 2 selected.
- 16:51:45 [nigel]
- Nigel: This means that for all the remaining meetings in March the start time will be 1600 UTC.
- 16:51:55 [nigel]
- Pierre: Can I suggest you send an Outlook invite for the next few meetings?
- 16:51:58 [nigel]
- Nigel: Will do.
- 16:52:00 [nigel]
- Pierre: Thanks.
- 16:52:18 [nigel]
- Glenn: On 2nd April it will be one hour later?
- 16:52:26 [nigel]
- Nigel: No, earlier, 1500.
- 16:52:40 [nigel]
- Atsushi: I will check the TTWG website too.
- 16:52:48 [nigel]
- Nigel: And we should reissue the joining instructions too.
- 16:53:07 [nigel]
- .. The webex schedule might need adjusting too - I will cover that offline.
- 16:53:33 [nigel]
- Topic: Meeting close
- 16:54:44 [nigel]
- Nigel: Thanks everyone, let's adjourn there, having completed our agenda.
- 16:54:52 [nigel]
- .. Meet same time UTC next week. [adjourns meeting]
- 16:54:57 [nigel]
- zakim, end meeting
- 16:54:57 [Zakim]
- As of this point the attendees have been Andreas, Cyril, Gary, Pierre, Nigel, Atsushi, Glenn
- 16:54:59 [Zakim]
- RRSAgent, please draft minutes v2
- 16:54:59 [RRSAgent]
- I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2020/03/05-tt-minutes.html Zakim
- 16:55:03 [Zakim]
- I am happy to have been of service, nigel; please remember to excuse RRSAgent. Goodbye
- 16:55:07 [Zakim]
- Zakim has left #tt
- 16:56:51 [atai2]
- atai2 has left #tt
- 17:00:44 [nigel]
- s/Topic: IMSC 1.2 New feature requests/Topic: IMSC 1.2 New feature requests and CR CfC
- 17:02:44 [nigel]
- s/ that's my test for this coming week/ that's my plan for this coming week
- 17:03:33 [nigel]
- s/I see you raised an issue on TTML2/Thanks for that. I see you also raised an issue on TTML2
- 17:05:11 [nigel]
- RRSAgent, please draft minutes v2
- 17:05:11 [RRSAgent]
- I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2020/03/05-tt-minutes.html nigel
- 17:08:34 [nigel]
- scribeOption: -final -noEmbedDiagnostics
- 17:08:36 [nigel]
- RRSAgent, please draft minutes v2
- 17:08:36 [RRSAgent]
- I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2020/03/05-tt-minutes.html nigel
- 17:10:01 [nigel]
- s/scribeOption: -final -noEmbedDiagnostics//
- 17:10:07 [nigel]
- scribeOptions: -final -noEmbedDiagnostics
- 17:10:09 [nigel]
- RRSAgent, please draft minutes v2
- 17:10:09 [RRSAgent]
- I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2020/03/05-tt-minutes.html nigel
- 17:21:45 [nigel]
- github-bot, end topic