IRC log of tt on 2016-03-03

Timestamps are in UTC.

15:00:48 [RRSAgent]

RRSAgent has joined #tt

15:00:48 [RRSAgent]

logging to http://www.w3.org/2016/03/03-tt-irc

15:00:50 [trackbot]

RRSAgent, make logs public

15:00:50 [Zakim]

Zakim has joined #tt

15:00:52 [trackbot]

Zakim, this will be TTML

15:00:52 [Zakim]

I do not see a conference matching that name scheduled within the next hour, trackbot

15:00:53 [trackbot]

Meeting: Timed Text Working Group Teleconference

15:00:53 [trackbot]

Date: 03 March 2016

15:01:11 [atai]

atai has joined #tt

15:01:57 [nigel]

chair: nigel

15:01:58 [nigel]

scribe: nigel

15:02:07 [nigel]

Regrets: Frans

15:03:40 [glenn]

glenn has joined #tt

15:06:36 [nigel]

Present: Nigel, Glenn, Thierry, Pierre, Andreas

15:06:45 [nigel]

Topic: This Meeting

15:08:02 [nigel]

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]

nigel: AOB?

15:08:30 [nigel]

group: no AOB.

15:08:51 [nigel]

Topic: Action Items

15:09:56 [nigel]

group: no updates on any actions this week.

15:10:03 [nigel]

Topic: Charter

15:10:38 [nigel]

tmichel: From my understanding last week we have 1 open PR from BBC, and a fair amount of issues that were

15:11:00 [nigel]

... raised. I thought Nigel wanted to look at those issues and state which are already incorporated in that PR.

15:11:11 [nigel]

nigel: That's right, but I haven't done it [slaps own wrist]

15:11:31 [nigel]

tmichel: I'm happy to merge the PR, but please let me know which issues are already covered.

15:11:46 [nigel]

... 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 [nigel]

... instead of requesting an extension and going through it again, if that's doable. From the amount of issues we

15:12:06 [nigel]

... have I think we can reach that goal.

15:12:14 [nigel]

atai: I have a question regarding the procedure.

15:12:35 [nigel]

... I think first it will be presented to W3M and then reviewed by the members, where topics can be raised?

15:12:37 [nigel]

tmichel: Yes.

15:13:02 [nigel]

... 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 [nigel]

... The sooner the better.

15:13:11 [nigel]

atai: Yes, of course! I agree.

15:16:19 [nigel]

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]

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 [nigel]

... 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]

nigel: On the document license, did we agree?

15:19:04 [nigel]

tmichel: We can state it on a document by document basis as discussed by email. I want to remove the wording

15:19:19 [nigel]

... 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 [nigel]

... 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]

nigel: Does anyone want to raise any specific issues for discussion?

15:20:58 [nigel]

tmichel: On the timeline link, we should make sure there's something there on the wiki,

15:21:05 [nigel]

nigel: I've already done that!

15:21:15 [nigel]

... (based on the link in the BBC pull request)

15:22:15 [nigel]

nigel: [goes through issues rapidly]

15:22:30 [nigel]

... I'd like a staff view on #25: https://github.com/w3c/charter-drafts/issues/25

15:22:38 [zcorpan]

zcorpan has joined #tt

15:23:13 [nigel]

... likewise for #22: https://github.com/w3c/charter-drafts/issues/22

15:23:53 [nigel]

nigel: What about issue #17, tmichel?

15:24:14 [nigel]

tmichel: https://github.com/w3c/charter-drafts/issues/17 I raised this because I thought it was a bit ambiguous.

15:24:20 [nigel]

nigel: How will you resolve this - is it a staff view?

15:24:38 [nigel]

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 [nigel]

... I'll discuss with plh on Monday. It's more something internal to disccuss.

15:24:52 [nigel]

s/disccuss/discuss

15:25:27 [nigel]

tmichel: I also wanted to add ARIB to external groups.

15:25:46 [nigel]

nigel: Then you should +1 Pierre's issue #26 https://github.com/w3c/charter-drafts/issues/26

15:26:18 [nigel]

nigel: I see that issue #16 has a number of things in.

15:27:01 [nigel]

tmichel: I see that's redundant. What's Apex?

15:27:28 [nigel]

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]

nigel: What will we do differently during the charter period between external groups that are listed vs those that are not?

15:30:09 [nigel]

tmichel: It's not a big difference but there's more pressure to seek wide review from listed groups.

15:30:29 [nigel]

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 [nigel]

tmichel: That's true.

15:31:42 [nigel]

glenn: I'd rather not list it unless we've got information that we're likely to get feedback from it.

15:31:55 [nigel]

tmichel: Would you disagree for both ARIB and APEX, or just APEX?

15:32:11 [nigel]

glenn: ARIB is a national standards body so a completely different sort of thing. We have a long tradition working

15:32:18 [nigel]

... with ARIB so I'm just commenting on APEX not ARIB here.

15:32:23 [nigel]

tmichel: I agree with you there.

15:32:50 [nigel]

glenn: FYI at the meeting from Sapporo there was an ARIB participant. If someone shows up from APEX in the

15:32:57 [nigel]

... future then sure, but I think it's premature now.

15:33:10 [nigel]

tmichel: Ok so what we could do is add them somewhere like in our implementation list.

15:33:24 [nigel]

pal: Don't get me wrong, it was only a suggestion. Please don't include them if you'd rather not.

15:33:39 [nigel]

... We should put in the charter how we expect to interact with those external organisations. It would be good to

15:33:53 [nigel]

... reaffirm that responses from those organisations are not mandatory for us to proceed.

15:34:58 [nigel]

nigel: I've added a note to include ARIB and exclude APEX for now.

15:35:40 [nigel]

pal: Don't use "exclude".

15:36:06 [nigel]

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 [nigel]

Topic: IMSC

15:37:33 [nigel]

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]

nigel: So that's a great step!

15:40:04 [nigel]

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 [nigel]

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]

nigel: +1 to the wiki page idea.

15:41:24 [nigel]

tmichel: I'll look at doing that in a couple of weeks or so.

15:42:12 [nigel]

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 [nigel]

... about the Rec release. We can talk about that later.

15:42:38 [nigel]

pal: I had a different recollection - we were going to let the W3C comms team make a determination especially in

15:42:53 [nigel]

... 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 [nigel]

... the decision.

15:43:31 [nigel]

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 [nigel]

... I understood that there will also be a blog.

15:44:01 [nigel]

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 [nigel]

... like us to miss that.

15:44:26 [nigel]

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 [nigel]

... 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 [nigel]

... quickly now - in a month or so we should exit the PR review and then move to Rec.

15:45:05 [nigel]

pal: I'll compose that email and send to tmichel and nigel for review.

15:45:08 [nigel]

tmichel: Great.

15:45:10 [nigel]

nigel: Thanks

15:45:26 [nigel]

Topic: TTML

15:45:44 [nigel]

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]

nigel: Also tmichel asked about a new publication.

15:46:21 [nigel]

glenn: I think we should get a new WD out - how about targeting e.g. March 15?

15:46:26 [nigel]

tmichel: Excellent, thank you Glenn.

15:46:29 [nigel]

nigel: +1

15:46:41 [nigel]

glenn: I'll spend some time on some edits. I have some minor items to report.

15:47:08 [nigel]

... In recent implementation work on TTV etc I've now implemented the full condition expression language and

15:47:38 [nigel]

... have it operating, except not the media query part yet. We have syntax parsing and a function evaluation. IN

15:47:43 [nigel]

s/IN/

15:48:07 [nigel]

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 [nigel]

... to review the code and understand it.

15:49:04 [glenn]

[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 [nigel]

glenn: Just to comment on the new issue about exposing external parameters, that's an interesting idea. I think

15:49:55 [nigel]

... we need to look at that and for example what CSS might be doing to support external parameter access. There

15:50:10 [nigel]

... may be security issues involved in doing that, to allow content from the local environment to be injected into

15:50:13 [nigel]

... the presentation content.

15:50:18 [nigel]

nigel: Ooh yes.

15:50:43 [nigel]

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 [nigel]

... 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 [nigel]

... use a preprocessor that uses macro substitution to replace values. Obviously that makes it less portable.

15:51:46 [nigel]

nigel: We could define the macros.

15:52:04 [nigel]

glenn: Most preprocessing like that uses server side replacement, but if it's genuinely client side only then that

15:52:21 [nigel]

... might be an issue. For example we have a user language parameter in condition that allows you to conditionalise

15:54:13 [nigel]

... content and style based on the local user language. That's a way to allow parameters to be used without

15:54:16 [nigel]

... exposing them.

15:55:06 [nigel]

nigel: Yes, however many accessibility requirements specify client side customisation of e.g. font family, size, color etc.

15:55:45 [nigel]

... and there's no way described right now to achieve that.

15:56:27 [nigel]

glenn: Traditionally solutions have included e.g. a CSS stylesheet that overrides local settings, or a presentation processor override.

15:56:38 [nigel]

nigel: That's the sort of thing we need to discuss.

15:56:59 [nigel]

pal: It's not straightforward but I'd like to participate in that discussion.

15:57:06 [nigel]

atai: I see Nigel's point.

15:57:22 [nigel]

group: Agreed to set aside some time to go deeper into this complex topic later.

15:58:14 [nigel]

Topic: TTML and WebVTT mapping document.

15:58:34 [nigel]

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 [nigel]

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 [nigel]

... to Note, but at some point I'd like to publish it.

15:59:48 [nigel]

nigel: Andreas, what do we need to do in your view before publishing it?

16:00:03 [nigel]

atai: It's already publicly available. There hasn't been much feedback. The major problem with the mapping document

16:00:41 [nigel]

... is as we discussed before, that WebVTT is still changing. So I think first we need more feedback, with tests of

16:00:55 [nigel]

... existing implementations, and then conclude if we should publish it as a Note. I don't see it at the moment.

16:01:08 [nigel]

... I'm not sure also when the best point will be because that also largely depends on the WebVTT spec.

16:01:23 [nigel]

... At the moment it is really problematic to say which features we can depend on in WebVTT>

16:01:28 [nigel]

s/>//

16:01:43 [nigel]

tmichel: If you want to give it more visibility don't you think publishing in /TR would give it more visibility?

16:02:03 [nigel]

... 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 [nigel]

... but does that mean we will not have a first Note before WebVTT is in CR?

16:02:37 [nigel]

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 [nigel]

... testing, as well as feedback and the evolution of WebVTT. If the third takes too long then of course we can

16:03:12 [nigel]

... go for feedback outside the group. At the moment I don't see it right now. Maybe in Q2 this year.

16:04:05 [nigel]

... 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 [nigel]

... 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 [nigel]

... so I would be very careful about early publication.

16:04:45 [nigel]

nigel: I think there are issues open as well which we haven't been able to resolve.

16:06:24 [nigel]

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 [nigel]

rrsagent, draft minutes

16:06:28 [RRSAgent]

I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/03/03-tt-minutes.html nigel

16:10:27 [nigel]

s/include ARIB and exclude APEX for now.//

16:10:42 [nigel]

s/pal: Don't use "exclude".//

16:10:59 [nigel]

s/okay I've edited it to //

16:11:06 [nigel]

rrsagent, draft minutes

16:11:06 [RRSAgent]

I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/03/03-tt-minutes.html nigel

16:14:23 [nigel]

s/advantage then it seems/advantage that it seems

16:14:25 [nigel]

rrsagent, draft minutes

16:14:25 [RRSAgent]

I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/03/03-tt-minutes.html nigel

16:14:49 [nigel]

scribeOptions: -final -noEmbedDiagnostics

16:14:50 [nigel]

rrsagent, draft minutes

16:14:50 [RRSAgent]

I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/03/03-tt-minutes.html nigel

16:19:19 [atai]

atai has left #tt

16:23:23 [zcorpan]

zcorpan has joined #tt

17:10:18 [Zakim]

Zakim has left #tt

17:24:14 [zcorpan]

zcorpan has joined #tt

18:19:40 [zcorpan]

zcorpan has joined #tt

18:19:45 [zcorpan_]

zcorpan_ has joined #tt

19:20:21 [zcorpan]

zcorpan has joined #tt

19:51:37 [zcorpan]

zcorpan has joined #tt

22:17:51 [zcorpan]

zcorpan has joined #tt