15:00:48 RRSAgent has joined #tt 15:00:48 logging to http://www.w3.org/2016/03/03-tt-irc 15:00:50 RRSAgent, make logs public 15:00:50 Zakim has joined #tt 15:00:52 Zakim, this will be TTML 15:00:52 I do not see a conference matching that name scheduled within the next hour, trackbot 15:00:53 Meeting: Timed Text Working Group Teleconference 15:00:53 Date: 03 March 2016 15:01:11 atai has joined #tt 15:01:57 chair: nigel 15:01:58 scribe: nigel 15:02:07 Regrets: Frans 15:03:40 glenn has joined #tt 15:06:36 Present: Nigel, Glenn, Thierry, Pierre, Andreas 15:06:45 Topic: This Meeting 15:08:02 nigel: For today we have a minor section on IMSC, TTML2, and Charter, and Thierry has also requested that we discuss TTML and WebVTT mapping, WebVTT comments 15:08:07 nigel: AOB? 15:08:30 group: no AOB. 15:08:51 Topic: Action Items 15:09:56 group: no updates on any actions this week. 15:10:03 Topic: Charter 15:10:38 tmichel: From my understanding last week we have 1 open PR from BBC, and a fair amount of issues that were 15:11:00 ... raised. I thought Nigel wanted to look at those issues and state which are already incorporated in that PR. 15:11:11 nigel: That's right, but I haven't done it [slaps own wrist] 15:11:31 tmichel: I'm happy to merge the PR, but please let me know which issues are already covered. 15:11:46 ... I think plh is expecting that document ASAP to submit to W3M. I think he's like to directly submit the charter 15:12:02 ... instead of requesting an extension and going through it again, if that's doable. From the amount of issues we 15:12:06 ... have I think we can reach that goal. 15:12:14 atai: I have a question regarding the procedure. 15:12:35 ... I think first it will be presented to W3M and then reviewed by the members, where topics can be raised? 15:12:37 tmichel: Yes. 15:13:02 ... But if you already have issues - e.g. the HTML and coordination with HTML, then it's better to do that as soon as possible. 15:13:05 ... The sooner the better. 15:13:11 atai: Yes, of course! I agree. 15:16:19 tmichel: If you could provide any further input before our next Telecon next week that would be excellent, so we can discuss it here first. 15:17:43 nigel: I've now looked through the issues and have added three issues to the BBC Pull Request where they are at 15:18:05 ... least partially addressed, but I'd encourage especially Pierre to review since it may not exactly match what he's asked for. 15:18:48 nigel: On the document license, did we agree? 15:19:04 tmichel: We can state it on a document by document basis as discussed by email. I want to remove the wording 15:19:19 ... because I've not seen it in other Charters so I'm not sure it's really needed. I'll let you know if it's needed by 15:19:47 ... next Monday. If it is then we'll tweak the language to allow either licence to be chosen on a document by document basis. 15:20:45 nigel: Does anyone want to raise any specific issues for discussion? 15:20:58 tmichel: On the timeline link, we should make sure there's something there on the wiki, 15:21:05 nigel: I've already done that! 15:21:15 ... (based on the link in the BBC pull request) 15:22:15 nigel: [goes through issues rapidly] 15:22:30 ... I'd like a staff view on #25: https://github.com/w3c/charter-drafts/issues/25 15:22:38 zcorpan has joined #tt 15:23:13 ... likewise for #22: https://github.com/w3c/charter-drafts/issues/22 15:23:53 nigel: What about issue #17, tmichel? 15:24:14 tmichel: https://github.com/w3c/charter-drafts/issues/17 I raised this because I thought it was a bit ambiguous. 15:24:20 nigel: How will you resolve this - is it a staff view? 15:24:38 tmichel: Either I remove Wide review on first publication and replace with what's in the process, or remove the whole bit. 15:24:46 ... I'll discuss with plh on Monday. It's more something internal to disccuss. 15:24:52 s/disccuss/discuss 15:25:27 tmichel: I also wanted to add ARIB to external groups. 15:25:46 nigel: Then you should +1 Pierre's issue #26 https://github.com/w3c/charter-drafts/issues/26 15:26:18 nigel: I see that issue #16 has a number of things in. 15:27:01 tmichel: I see that's redundant. What's Apex? 15:27:28 pal: It's an organisation that sets standards for airlines who has in the past expressed an interest in IMSC 1 and TTML so I thought we should keep them up to date. 15:29:51 nigel: What will we do differently during the charter period between external groups that are listed vs those that are not? 15:30:09 tmichel: It's not a big difference but there's more pressure to seek wide review from listed groups. 15:30:29 pal: We discussed this for IMSC 1 - if a group is listed but does not respond then that does not stop us from proceeding. 15:30:32 tmichel: That's true. 15:31:42 glenn: I'd rather not list it unless we've got information that we're likely to get feedback from it. 15:31:55 tmichel: Would you disagree for both ARIB and APEX, or just APEX? 15:32:11 glenn: ARIB is a national standards body so a completely different sort of thing. We have a long tradition working 15:32:18 ... with ARIB so I'm just commenting on APEX not ARIB here. 15:32:23 tmichel: I agree with you there. 15:32:50 glenn: FYI at the meeting from Sapporo there was an ARIB participant. If someone shows up from APEX in the 15:32:57 ... future then sure, but I think it's premature now. 15:33:10 tmichel: Ok so what we could do is add them somewhere like in our implementation list. 15:33:24 pal: Don't get me wrong, it was only a suggestion. Please don't include them if you'd rather not. 15:33:39 ... We should put in the charter how we expect to interact with those external organisations. It would be good to 15:33:53 ... reaffirm that responses from those organisations are not mandatory for us to proceed. 15:34:58 nigel: I've added a note to include ARIB and exclude APEX for now. 15:35:40 pal: Don't use "exclude". 15:36:06 nigel: okay I've edited it to say "Group agreed to add in ARIB but not to add in APEX to the TTWG Charter." 15:36:36 Topic: IMSC 15:37:33 nigel: Just to note that Pierre, Philippe, Thierry and I met the Director on Tuesday and he approved transition to PR which we expect to be published next week. 15:37:49 nigel: So that's a great step! 15:40:04 nigel: We did agree to add a dated note to the implementation report at some stage saying that we're no longer working on it, and point to a new page listing current known implementations. 15:40:59 tmichel: I'm happy to take a snapshot of the current IR document, and list in a new page the tests and implementations we know of, in a wiki page. 15:41:05 nigel: +1 to the wiki page idea. 15:41:24 tmichel: I'll look at doing that in a couple of weeks or so. 15:42:12 tmichel: We did discuss a press release and agreed not to have a formal press release for example with companies giving testimonials (which we don't usually do) but to have some kind of blog entry 15:42:18 ... about the Rec release. We can talk about that later. 15:42:38 pal: I had a different recollection - we were going to let the W3C comms team make a determination especially in 15:42:53 ... the light of the recent Emmy. I'm happy to compose an email to the comms team, but I would allow them to make 15:42:55 ... the decision. 15:43:31 tmichel: I doubt that they will have a big press release but they could add some information about the Emmy on the home page. 15:43:42 ... I understood that there will also be a blog. 15:44:01 pal: I think you or I or Nigel should inform the Comm team. It's an opportunity to build momentum and I would not 15:44:06 ... like us to miss that. 15:44:26 tmichel: I'm fine with that - can you start drafting something and we can discuss it in the group and then check 15:44:43 ... with the comm team if they're happy to issue it? We have to start early, because things are going to go 15:44:55 ... quickly now - in a month or so we should exit the PR review and then move to Rec. 15:45:05 pal: I'll compose that email and send to tmichel and nigel for review. 15:45:08 tmichel: Great. 15:45:10 nigel: Thanks 15:45:26 Topic: TTML 15:45:44 nigel: Just to note we have a new issue on TTML1, and a couple on TTML2 if you want to check the github repo. 15:46:08 nigel: Also tmichel asked about a new publication. 15:46:21 glenn: I think we should get a new WD out - how about targeting e.g. March 15? 15:46:26 tmichel: Excellent, thank you Glenn. 15:46:29 nigel: +1 15:46:41 glenn: I'll spend some time on some edits. I have some minor items to report. 15:47:08 ... In recent implementation work on TTV etc I've now implemented the full condition expression language and 15:47:38 ... have it operating, except not the media query part yet. We have syntax parsing and a function evaluation. IN 15:47:43 s/IN/ 15:48:07 glenn: In particular in TTPE we have it working for the forced use case, and it's publicly available if people want 15:48:19 ... to review the code and understand it. 15:49:04 [1] https://github.com/skynav/ttt/blob/master/ttt-ttv/src/main/java/com/skynav/ttv/util/Condition.java [2] https://github.com/skynav/ttt/blob/master/ttt-ttv/src/test/java/com/skynav/ttv/util/ConditionTestCases.java 15:49:42 glenn: Just to comment on the new issue about exposing external parameters, that's an interesting idea. I think 15:49:55 ... we need to look at that and for example what CSS might be doing to support external parameter access. There 15:50:10 ... may be security issues involved in doing that, to allow content from the local environment to be injected into 15:50:13 ... the presentation content. 15:50:18 nigel: Ooh yes. 15:50:43 glenn: I could also see that you could use a condition that checks to see if a particular feature is supported. I want 15:51:04 ... to see use cases for this. The question I would raise is that if you're processing it locally then why don't you 15:51:28 ... use a preprocessor that uses macro substitution to replace values. Obviously that makes it less portable. 15:51:46 nigel: We could define the macros. 15:52:04 glenn: Most preprocessing like that uses server side replacement, but if it's genuinely client side only then that 15:52:21 ... might be an issue. For example we have a user language parameter in condition that allows you to conditionalise 15:54:13 ... content and style based on the local user language. That's a way to allow parameters to be used without 15:54:16 ... exposing them. 15:55:06 nigel: Yes, however many accessibility requirements specify client side customisation of e.g. font family, size, color etc. 15:55:45 ... and there's no way described right now to achieve that. 15:56:27 glenn: Traditionally solutions have included e.g. a CSS stylesheet that overrides local settings, or a presentation processor override. 15:56:38 nigel: That's the sort of thing we need to discuss. 15:56:59 pal: It's not straightforward but I'd like to participate in that discussion. 15:57:06 atai: I see Nigel's point. 15:57:22 group: Agreed to set aside some time to go deeper into this complex topic later. 15:58:14 Topic: TTML and WebVTT mapping document. 15:58:34 nigel: tmichel asked about when we publish a FPWD, but it's a Note isn't it, so not subject to a FPWD? 15:58:56 tmichel: There are two ways: we could issue a WD and then later a Note that we revise any time, or just go straight 15:59:22 ... to Note, but at some point I'd like to publish it. 15:59:48 nigel: Andreas, what do we need to do in your view before publishing it? 16:00:03 atai: It's already publicly available. There hasn't been much feedback. The major problem with the mapping document 16:00:41 ... is as we discussed before, that WebVTT is still changing. So I think first we need more feedback, with tests of 16:00:55 ... existing implementations, and then conclude if we should publish it as a Note. I don't see it at the moment. 16:01:08 ... I'm not sure also when the best point will be because that also largely depends on the WebVTT spec. 16:01:23 ... At the moment it is really problematic to say which features we can depend on in WebVTT> 16:01:28 s/>// 16:01:43 tmichel: If you want to give it more visibility don't you think publishing in /TR would give it more visibility? 16:02:03 ... The first publication of a Note does not have to be final. I understand that there's a big dependency with WebVTT 16:02:14 ... but does that mean we will not have a first Note before WebVTT is in CR? 16:02:37 atai: Yes, let's see when this happens or when we can say that it's stable. As I said I think there's also the topic of 16:02:57 ... testing, as well as feedback and the evolution of WebVTT. If the third takes too long then of course we can 16:03:12 ... go for feedback outside the group. At the moment I don't see it right now. Maybe in Q2 this year. 16:04:05 ... Also, if we pubish it on the /TR page there's a disadvantage as well as an advantage then it seems for people 16:04:21 ... not reading the document that there is an easy translation but I don't think that's really the case at the moment 16:04:29 ... so I would be very careful about early publication. 16:04:45 nigel: I think there are issues open as well which we haven't been able to resolve. 16:06:24 nigel: We're out of time so I'll adjourn. Meet same time next week. Please do look at the Charter before then. Thanks all. [adjourns meeting] 16:06:28 rrsagent, draft minutes 16:06:28 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/03/03-tt-minutes.html nigel 16:10:27 s/include ARIB and exclude APEX for now.// 16:10:42 s/pal: Don't use "exclude".// 16:10:59 s/okay I've edited it to // 16:11:06 rrsagent, draft minutes 16:11:06 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/03/03-tt-minutes.html nigel 16:14:23 s/advantage then it seems/advantage that it seems 16:14:25 rrsagent, draft minutes 16:14:25 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/03/03-tt-minutes.html nigel 16:14:49 scribeOptions: -final -noEmbedDiagnostics 16:14:50 rrsagent, draft minutes 16:14:50 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/03/03-tt-minutes.html nigel 16:19:19 atai has left #tt 16:23:23 zcorpan has joined #tt 17:10:18 Zakim has left #tt 17:24:14 zcorpan has joined #tt 18:19:40 zcorpan has joined #tt 18:19:45 zcorpan_ has joined #tt 19:20:21 zcorpan has joined #tt 19:51:37 zcorpan has joined #tt 22:17:51 zcorpan has joined #tt