See also: IRC log
<scribe> scribe: Nigel
<scribe> scribenick: nigel
nigel: I don't think we need F2F
planning on the agenda. I know I have an action to check
... in with David about WebVTT being on the agenda (or not),
which I haven't managed to do yet.
tmichel: I think we should contact the WebVTT folk early to motivate them to attend.
nigel: Ok
pierre: So the plan is to go through another Wide Review of WebVTT?
tmichel: Yes, because the spec has so many new features that we must do that.
pierre: So will the comments on the first wide review be responded to?
tmichel: Yes, we should do that,
and then make the spec edits for the next version. I'm
still
... missing a lot of info.
nigel: I see from the CG that
there are some responses in favour of the current
dispositions,
... so I expect David to come back to the WG with an agreed
proposal on that basis at some point.
tmichel: I added a column to the
dispositions wiki and expect the WG to process each one
... and add an appropriate label. I also plan to identify which
changes are substantive.
nigel: Back to the agenda for
today, I propose IMSC, Profiles then TTML - there's nothing
else
... to cover that I'm aware of.
... By the way I noticed that the Unicode ticket we have has
not been updated since Pierre's
... comment 7 months ago. I don't know what's happening with
that.
tmichel: I suggest asking r12a if he can help unlock that.
<scribe> ACTION: tmichel Ask Richard Ishida for assistance in unblocking the Unicode ticket 8915. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2016/11/03-tt-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-485 - Ask richard ishida for assistance in unblocking the unicode ticket 8915. [on Thierry Michel - due 2016-11-10].
nigel: Any other business for today?
group: No other business.
Pierre: I'm getting closer to a
real proposal for replying to DVB and for a next version of
IMSC.
... Hopefully by next meeting I will have something concrete to
discuss.
action-479?
<trackbot> action-479 -- Pierre-Anthony Lemieux to Refactor the imsc repository in preparation for future versions of imsc. -- due 2016-09-26 -- PENDINGREVIEW
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/tracker/actions/479
nigel: The pull request is enough for us to track this. So I will close this.
close action-479
<trackbot> Closed action-479.
Pierre: I think I can merge that Pull Request too.
nigel: Agreed.
nigel: Since we said we would
come back to this in mid-November I just wanted to
highlight
... that now is a good time for everyone to review the document
and make any proposals
... for edits, otherwise, hold your peace!
nigel: There's been a lot of work
over the last week.
... First, Wide Review:
... We have a date for TAG review, at their Tokyo meeting on
23rd November.
... I have prepared a high level architectural summary of the
changes, and sent that draft
... to Glenn for review. I've also made the TAG aware of the
vocabulary change annex.
Glenn: I'll review that and give you my feedback.
nigel: Thanks.
Glenn: What does the wide review require, in terms of a new WD?
nigel: Good question. We did say
we would have a new WD for wide review prepared by
... this time, but we're not there yet.
Glenn: We could publish a new WD just not a proper equivalent to "LCWD" right now.
nigel: How much time do we need to get there?
Glenn: I'm working on a new annex
on root container region, then I need another one on
... the root temporal interval, that pulls together all of the
open issues on timing that we
... had discussed. I put them in the agenda because there's no
single good place in the spec
... to do that, and it seems like we could use normative
appendices.
... They are the two big ticket items. That will probably take
at least a week more to deal
... with both of them. Then we have a variety of new issues
that we have been working
... through, and some of them have taken a while to distil our
thinking down to a point at
... which I can make changes. Then there's the audio
description functionality, and the editorial
... notes throughout the document that do not have
corresponding issues. Some of those
... may be substantive. I'm thinking that it's probably going
to take the next month or two
... to resolve everything in there, and it depends how many new
issues are filed. I'm glad
... for Pierre's review comments, though they do add further
work.
... It could be near the end of the year before a "last call"
draft.
nigel: From a Horizontal Review
perspective we are encouraged to begin the review earlier
... rather than later so given that I would prefer to issue a
new WD as soon as possible and
... then begin the review on it, and if we add further
increments then the review delta will
... be smaller.
Glenn: Then I will prepare a new WD snapshot and work with Thierry to check it is okay.
tmichel: Let me know when you are ready.
Glenn: Then I will use the automatic publishing system. I need to get an ID etc for that.
nigel: We need to point to a
resolution for that, and actually as long as the pull
requests'
... review periods have expired then the resolution from
Sapporo is sufficient to allow us
... to publish.
tmichel: If you can provide that URL that's what we need.
nigel: Yes, it's on our wiki page
under historic meetings.
... If I remember correctly we decided that on the first day of
the Sapporo meeting.
... The other Horizontal Review point to raise is the updated
draft security questionnaire
... response that Thierry sent recently.
Glenn: Do I need to add an appendix called Security Considerations to the spec?
tmichel: SVG has one.
nigel: I am not aware of anything that requires us to add such a section.
tmichel: I don't think there's any requirement.
Glenn: Okay, if there is one then
please add an issue to it. If we were to have one then
... there would be very little in it since we have no
scripting. However now that we have
... added resource fetching and links there may be a possible
need for it at some point.
nigel: I would defer this until
we get Horizontal or Wide Review comments back that say
... we need it.
Glenn: Good Idea.
<tmichel> +1
Glenn: I also have a follow-up question about the IANA media type registration - what did we do?
nigel: We put it in https://www.w3.org/TR/ttml-profile-registry/
... which is a WG Note. The IANA registration points to
that.
Glenn: In TTML1 we referenced the appendix, so I plan to vector references to the profiles registry.
nigel: Last time we talked about
this we said we'd reference the IANA registration because
... that's normative, but I'm concerned about circular
references.
tmichel: I discussed this with
plh and we can actually normatively reference WG Notes,
as
... long as we get approval from the Director.
... There's no process requirement here; I'll send the group a
link to some guidance on this.
Glenn: I'll double check - it may not be that we even need a normative reference.
nigel: Back to the Security
Questionnaire, I hear no objections so I propose that
Thierry
... sends it in current form when we have published the
upcoming WD.
tmichel: Ok, give me an action for that.
<scribe> ACTION: tmichel Shortly after publishing the next TTML WD send the security questionnaire for horizontal review [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2016/11/03-tt-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-486 - Shortly after publishing the next ttml wd send the security questionnaire for horizontal review [on Thierry Michel - due 2016-11-10].
nigel: That's all on Horizontal review, so let's look at issue #217: https://github.com/w3c/ttml2/issues/217#issuecomment-257919913
Pierre: This is specifically for tts:textOutline.
Glenn: We have to pick a value
for cell lengths for tts:textOutline, but the note in
TTML1
... was to base it on the direction associated with the block
progression direction. We have
... two notes that refer to that which makes it tied to the
writing mode, and Pierre asked
... if that is really desired here, rather than just referring
to the height of the computed cell
... size. I tend to agree with him.
... I'm not aware of any implementations that make it sensitive
to writing modes. Even if
... TTPE does then I would be willing to change it. I think
there's relatively low risk in making
... this normative and adding a TTML1 errata to change that
language.
Pierre: Thanks for that great
summary. The note's example does not actually state the
... value of writingMode so maybe that was not even the
intention at the beginning, it is
... hard to tell.
nigel: That works for me. From a semantic perspective the other option is not to permit the
<tmichel> I will drop and will be back in 5 minutes
nigel: c unit here at all, but
that's not good either. I did also wonder if we should
have
... units for cell height and cell width independently since
the c unit is inherently ambiguous,
... or at least context dependent. However our direction of
travel here should be to move
... towards rw and rh units so I do not want to add that
complexity at this stage.
Glenn: Okay that's enough for me to go on for now. I don't anticipate any other objections.
nigel: I've added a note to the issue.
<tmichel> I am back.
nigel: I issued a pull request
for the tts:textShadow example but had to remove the
inset
... keyword and the spread - they're not supported in CSS3
text-shadow. I wondered if
... there is a reason why we need them or if we can just align
with CSS.
Glenn: You might want to check what their rationale is, you could ask Bert Bos.
nigel: My default proposal is to
align with CSS text-shadow for now and if CSS adds inset
... or spread then we can consider adding that later.
Glenn: I see that Elika is the
editor, so it wouldn't hurt to ask her.
... In the meantime I don't mind you making those changes in
the pull request.
nigel: That pull request is ready to go with those changes.
Glenn: Okay I'll review that and merge it.
nigel: Thanks - I've just
realised the documentation on the shadow type in the schema
may
... need to be updated also. I'll have a look at that.
... The pull request is https://github.com/w3c/ttml2/pull/218
... Thanks everyone. [adjourns meeting]