IRC log of tt on 2018-06-14
Timestamps are in UTC.
- 14:00:25 [RRSAgent]
- RRSAgent has joined #tt
- 14:00:25 [RRSAgent]
- logging to https://www.w3.org/2018/06/14-tt-irc
- 14:00:27 [trackbot]
- RRSAgent, make logs public
- 14:00:27 [Zakim]
- Zakim has joined #tt
- 14:00:29 [trackbot]
- Meeting: Timed Text Working Group Teleconference
- 14:00:29 [trackbot]
- Date: 14 June 2018
- 14:00:31 [tmichel]
- tmichel has joined #tt
- 14:00:39 [nigel]
- Log: https://www.w3.org/2018/06/14-tt-irc
- 14:01:15 [cyril]
- cyril has joined #tt
- 14:02:26 [nigel]
- Present: Philippe, Cyril, Nigel, Glenn, Thierry
- 14:02:30 [nigel]
- Regrets: Andreas
- 14:02:52 [nigel]
- Chair: Nigel
- 14:03:03 [nigel]
- scribe: nigel
- 14:03:35 [nigel]
- Topic: This meeting
- 14:04:06 [nigel]
- Nigel: I think we need to talk about TTML2 CR2 publication, dates etc. as well as one or two
- 14:04:14 [nigel]
- .. agenda-marked items on the repo.
- 14:05:35 [nigel]
- .. We also have some IMSC 1.1 agenda topics
- 14:05:40 [nigel]
- Pierre: Start with requirements issues.
- 14:05:43 [nigel]
- Nigel: Yes.
- 14:06:22 [nigel]
- .. AOB or particular other points to raise? I have TPAC to mention
- 14:06:29 [nigel]
- group: [no other business]
- 14:06:32 [nigel]
- Topic: TPAC 2018
- 14:06:51 [nigel]
- Nigel: You'll have in your inboxes a message about registration which has just been opened today.
- 14:07:10 [nigel]
- .. My request to resolve the clash between Media and Entertainment IG and TTWG seems to
- 14:07:35 [nigel]
- .. have had no action taken and I've received no response, and the clash remains on the
- 14:07:40 [nigel]
- .. published schedule for the Monday.
- 14:08:21 [nigel]
- Pierre: FYI My attendance later in the week has become impossible now so I have a strong
- 14:08:26 [nigel]
- .. preference for being done by Wednesday.
- 14:09:05 [nigel]
- Nigel: I also talked to one of the Chairs of the M&E IG who told me that their meeting on
- 14:09:13 [nigel]
- .. the Monday is the traditional day but there's no other reason for it.
- 14:09:26 [nigel]
- Pierre: We should focus on specific topics to cover in a joint meeting since moving the
- 14:09:31 [nigel]
- .. meetings might not happen now.
- 14:09:33 [nigel]
- Nigel: +1
- 14:09:59 [nigel]
- Topic: TTML2 CR2 publication
- 14:10:15 [nigel]
- Nigel: I sent the CfC out yesterday - a little later than agreed last week, but our discussion
- 14:10:28 [nigel]
- .. last week did not cover the additional pull requests that came along after the meeting,
- 14:10:34 [nigel]
- .. which took a bit of extra processing.
- 14:10:52 [plh]
- q+
- 14:11:14 [nigel]
- .. The next question is, given the CfC end date, when can we make the transition request
- 14:11:17 [nigel]
- .. and publish CR2.
- 14:11:20 [nigel]
- ack plh
- 14:11:34 [nigel]
- Philippe: If you want to publish on the 28th the trick is to send the transition request on
- 14:12:03 [nigel]
- .. the 21st, with a note that the decision will be finalised on [date]. I used that trick before.
- 14:12:24 [nigel]
- Glenn: Why do we need a transition request if we're already in CR?
- 14:12:35 [nigel]
- Philippe: Because you're making substantive changes and the Director has to approve it.
- 14:12:45 [nigel]
- .. Only CR updates with substantive changes need a transition request.
- 14:13:11 [nigel]
- .. Based on that I'd like to target the 28th June for publishing. Is that a feasible date?
- 14:13:21 [nigel]
- Philippe: If you send a transition request on 21st then yes it is.
- 14:13:43 [nigel]
- Glenn: Then that puts PR on August 9.
- 14:13:56 [nigel]
- .. And the final Rec is sometime in September.
- 14:14:01 [nigel]
- Philippe: Yes, the 13th to be exact.
- 14:14:28 [nigel]
- Nigel: Who can take the action to draft the Transition Request?
- 14:14:35 [nigel]
- Thierry: I can do that.
- 14:14:39 [nigel]
- Nigel: Thank you
- 14:15:01 [nigel]
- .. If we can have a draft for me to look at say on Monday that would be great.
- 14:15:05 [nigel]
- Thierry: Okay
- 14:15:22 [nigel]
- Nigel: Thanks for your flexibility there Philippe.
- 14:15:58 [plh]
- https://www.w3.org/2018/06/ttml2-cr-diff.html
- 14:16:04 [nigel]
- Glenn: I just sent out a link to a diff listing - thank you Philippe for sorting that manually (the diff service is not working)
- 14:16:20 [nigel]
- .. It is actually between the branch where I'm tweaking the CfC that has a pending pull request,
- 14:16:33 [nigel]
- .. with some minor editorial stuff there like the date on the document and a couple of other
- 14:16:39 [nigel]
- .. little things. It's useful for doing a comparison.
- 14:17:15 [nigel]
- Nigel: Thank you. I also want to make sure we have agreement on the earliest CR exit date.
- 14:17:51 [nigel]
- Glenn: I made it August 9 for entering PR.
- 14:18:12 [nigel]
- .. I'm not sure what the July date is - on your tool it listed August 9 as PR entry.
- 14:18:21 [nigel]
- Philippe: It also says deadline for comment July 26th.
- 14:18:29 [plh]
- https://w3c.github.io/spec-releases/milestones/?cr=2018-06-28&noFPWD=true
- 14:18:34 [nigel]
- Nigel: We need to put that deadline for comments in the SOTD.
- 14:18:45 [nigel]
- Philippe: The deadline needs to be before you request transition otherwise it doesn't make
- 14:18:46 [glenn]
- glenn has joined #tt
- 14:18:53 [nigel]
- .. sense, and you need to request transition a week before you publish.
- 14:18:57 [plh]
- https://w3c.github.io/spec-releases/milestones/?cr=2018-06-28&noFPWD=true
- 14:19:24 [nigel]
- Glenn: We didn't write deadline for comments in the SOTD
- 14:19:26 [nigel]
- Nigel: We need to.
- 14:19:37 [nigel]
- Philippe: Yes you need to make it clear otherwise if you receive a comment a day after
- 14:19:41 [nigel]
- .. then you're in trouble.
- 14:19:59 [nigel]
- Glenn: Okay I'll add that deadline if that's ok
- 14:20:16 [nigel]
- PROPOSAL: Set TTML2 CR2 deadline for comments at July 26th 2018
- 14:20:27 [nigel]
- Nigel: Any objections?
- 14:20:32 [nigel]
- RESOLUTION: Set TTML2 CR2 deadline for comments at July 26th 2018
- 14:21:04 [nigel]
- Nigel: I also asked if anyone has any features to add to the at risk list, and since I've had
- 14:21:13 [nigel]
- .. no responses, I assume there will not be any more at risk features.
- 14:21:42 [nigel]
- .. Note that we have already added lineShear and shear
- 14:22:00 [nigel]
- Glenn: I don't anticipate any problem with those because we've already implemented them
- 14:22:12 [nigel]
- .. in TTPE in private, for presentation and validation and I think that maybe Pierre has done
- 14:22:24 [nigel]
- .. something in that regard, maybe for IMSC. I anticipate something from Netflix as well.
- 14:22:31 [nigel]
- .. I don't think either will be thrown out.
- 14:22:34 [nigel]
- Nigel: Ok, sounds good.
- 14:23:14 [nigel]
- .. I think it's worth mentioning that the main change in your as-yet-unmerged pull request
- 14:23:24 [nigel]
- .. is to add details of the changes since CR1.
- 14:23:48 [nigel]
- Glenn: Yes, I made some progress with that last night so that should be completed by
- 14:23:51 [nigel]
- .. next week's meeting.
- 14:24:26 [nigel]
- Nigel: Anything else for transition to CR2 that I may not have thought of?
- 14:24:41 [nigel]
- Philippe: No, I don't think so for a CR2 transition. It should be a pretty simple transition.
- 14:24:50 [nigel]
- .. You don't have to demonstrate that you addressed all of the issues at this point.
- 14:25:07 [nigel]
- Nigel: Thank you that's helpful.
- 14:25:16 [nigel]
- Glenn: We have deferred some editorial changes to PR.
- 14:25:25 [nigel]
- Philippe: Yes, you can do that.
- 14:25:42 [nigel]
- Glenn: As I've mentioned to Nigel I will be strongly opposed to any substantive change.
- 14:25:53 [nigel]
- .. Anything that looks like it is substantive has to be put into a Note and made informative
- 14:26:07 [nigel]
- .. unless it is completely broken. I don't know of anything that is hopelessly broken that
- 14:26:19 [nigel]
- .. we have to get into the text as normative text at this point. Of course I can't anticipate
- 14:26:23 [nigel]
- .. what comments will come out of CR2.
- 14:27:08 [nigel]
- Nigel: That's a good segue into the agenda item.
- 14:27:23 [nigel]
- Glenn: There's just one.
- 14:27:53 [nigel]
- Topic: Applicability of tts:rubyPosition when tts:ruby="text". ttml2#832
- 14:27:57 [nigel]
- github: https://github.com/w3c/ttml2/issues/832
- 14:28:15 [nigel]
- Nigel: This is a request for a substantive change concerning rubyPosition.
- 14:28:27 [nigel]
- Glenn: It is minimally substantive but I think we can call it that. It's a change in normative
- 14:28:36 [nigel]
- .. text that could impact conformance so it satisfies the criteria.
- 14:28:57 [nigel]
- Nigel: Pierre raised the issue, Glenn opened a pull request, #833
- 14:29:43 [nigel]
- Pierre: It looks right to me. It makes it invalid to specify position on a ruby text that is
- 14:29:48 [nigel]
- .. within an explicit textContainer?
- 14:29:56 [nigel]
- Glenn: Exactly, which covers the previous case that was documented.
- 14:30:00 [nigel]
- Pierre: I will approve.
- 14:30:12 [nigel]
- Cyril: I haven't looked at it yet.
- 14:30:14 [nigel]
- .. I will do that.
- 14:30:43 [nigel]
- Nigel: Glenn please hold off merging until Cyril has had a look a it?
- 14:30:46 [nigel]
- Glenn: Sure I'll do that.
- 14:31:07 [nigel]
- Nigel: I will treat this as review feedback during the CfC period so I don't intend to extend
- 14:31:15 [nigel]
- .. the CfC deadline based on this.
- 14:32:01 [nigel]
- SUMMARY: PR Open, to merge early as a CfC feedback comment when @cconcolato's review is complete
- 14:32:04 [nigel]
- github-bot, end topic
- 14:32:36 [nigel]
- Cyril: I've just approved it.
- 14:32:43 [nigel]
- Glenn: Great, I'll go ahead and merge it.
- 14:33:15 [nigel]
- Topic: TTML2 open issues for wide review
- 14:33:20 [glenn]
- https://github.com/w3c/ttml2/milestone/3
- 14:33:32 [nigel]
- Nigel: I believe all those are with me for action.
- 14:33:38 [nigel]
- Glenn: What's holding those up?
- 14:33:49 [nigel]
- Nigel: Me being snowed under with other things, is the answer.
- 14:34:38 [nigel]
- .. I need to send a disposition to SMPTE and another to Glenn Goldtein.
- 14:34:51 [nigel]
- .. For issue #277 that's one for us to discuss.
- 14:35:03 [nigel]
- Topic: Incorporate CSS advances into TTML vertical text handling ttml2#277
- 14:35:08 [nigel]
- github: https://github.com/w3c/ttml2/issues/277
- 14:36:11 [nigel]
- Nigel: The status of this is that we could mark sideways as at risk but do not have a
- 14:36:15 [nigel]
- .. feature designator for it.
- 14:36:38 [nigel]
- .. Any views?
- 14:36:52 [nigel]
- Cyril: I vaguely remember we decided not to mark as at risk because it was implemented.
- 14:37:02 [nigel]
- Nigel: OK I didn't recall that.
- 14:37:09 [nigel]
- Cyril: Maybe Glenn mentioned it was implemented.
- 14:37:17 [nigel]
- Glenn: Yes, we have all the current values implemented.
- 14:37:49 [nigel]
- Cyril: Is there a risk to marking it as risk?
- 14:37:50 [nigel]
- Glenn: No
- 14:37:55 [nigel]
- Nigel: Two downsides:
- 14:38:01 [nigel]
- .. 1. Suggests non-implementation
- 14:38:10 [nigel]
- .. 2. Editorial work to add the feature designator
- 14:38:35 [nigel]
- Cyril: I don't think the argument for not inviting implementation is a practical problem
- 14:38:40 [nigel]
- .. given the current implementation status.
- 14:38:52 [nigel]
- Glenn: I think it's unnecessary work and we should not mark sideways as at risk.
- 14:39:01 [nigel]
- .. It's implemented.
- 14:39:13 [nigel]
- Nigel: You have one implementation for it?
- 14:39:26 [nigel]
- Glenn: I have a presentation implementation and another member has a validation implementation
- 14:39:30 [nigel]
- .. so it satisfies the criteria.
- 14:39:37 [nigel]
- Nigel: Ok then we don't need to mark it as at risk.
- 14:39:50 [nigel]
- Glenn: As a general comment I'm worried about proliferation of feature designators. We
- 14:40:06 [nigel]
- .. went from around 114 to about 250, so we've doubled the designators but we haven't
- 14:40:12 [nigel]
- .. doubled the number of features. Compared to TTML1.
- 14:40:40 [nigel]
- Nigel: Can we resolve to close this with no further change?
- 14:40:43 [nigel]
- Glenn: No objection
- 14:40:46 [nigel]
- Nigel: Anyone else?
- 14:40:57 [nigel]
- RESOLUTION: Close without marking sideways as at risk
- 14:41:01 [nigel]
- github-bot, end topic
- 14:43:10 [nigel]
- Topic: TTML2 CR2 wrap-up
- 14:43:29 [nigel]
- Nigel: I think that's all for TTML2, barring the open editorial branch to complete the changes
- 14:43:30 [nigel]
- .. etc.
- 14:43:40 [nigel]
- Glenn: I'll leave that open for a while to deal with other editorial points.
- 14:43:46 [nigel]
- .. [need to drop off now]
- 14:44:06 [nigel]
- Nigel: Thank you
- 14:44:12 [nigel]
- Topic: IMSC v1.1 Requirements
- 14:44:37 [nigel]
- Nigel: Pierre, I see we have a few issues open.
- 14:45:16 [nigel]
- Topic: Consider adding support for "before" and "after" annotation position imsc-vnext-reqs#23
- 14:45:23 [nigel]
- github: https://github.com/w3c/imsc-vnext-reqs/issues/23
- 14:46:29 [nigel]
- Pierre: Note that #25 may need to change depending on what we decide for #23 here.
- 14:47:03 [nigel]
- .. Today IMSC 1.1 has requirement only for rubyPosition="outside".
- 14:47:15 [nigel]
- .. After some digging, I think that's optimised for 2 line presentations.
- 14:47:28 [nigel]
- .. My understanding is sometimes there are 3 lines, depending on the authorial style.
- 14:47:39 [nigel]
- .. If they are anything other than 2 lines the author will need more control than outside,
- 14:47:52 [nigel]
- .. and will need to position rubys before or after, so my suggestion is simply to support
- 14:47:58 [nigel]
- .. before and after as well as outside for rubyPosition.
- 14:48:09 [nigel]
- .. From an implementation perspective there's more syntax but in terms of layout it's
- 14:48:23 [nigel]
- .. kind of a no-op because before and after need to be supported for outside anyway.
- 14:48:30 [nigel]
- .. This reflects feedback I have received.
- 14:48:42 [nigel]
- Cyril: I have no objection. We were proponents for outside but we don't have a problem
- 14:48:54 [nigel]
- .. with people using before and after if they want to. It's not exactly a no-op for implementation
- 14:48:59 [nigel]
- .. but the cost is minimal.
- 14:49:11 [nigel]
- Pierre: The risk is too great to not include.
- 14:49:34 [nigel]
- Nigel: I think that's right, and also would note that whatever syntax we accept for
- 14:49:41 [nigel]
- .. rubyPosition we also permit in rubyReserve.
- 14:49:45 [nigel]
- Pierre: Yes.
- 14:50:20 [nigel]
- RESOLUTION: Support `"before"` and `"after"` values for `tts:rubyPosition`.
- 14:50:25 [nigel]
- github-bot, end topic
- 14:50:46 [nigel]
- Topic: Update tts:rubyReserve values imsc-vnext-reqs#25
- 14:50:52 [nigel]
- github: https://github.com/w3c/imsc-vnext-reqs/issues/25
- 14:51:19 [nigel]
- Nigel: Now we resolved in #23 to support `before` and `after` we need to do that here.
- 14:51:26 [nigel]
- Pierre: Yes, that removes the restrictions.
- 14:51:52 [nigel]
- PROPOSAL: Support `#rubyReserve` without additional constraints
- 14:52:03 [nigel]
- Nigel: Any objections?
- 14:52:11 [nigel]
- RESOLUTION: Support `#rubyReserve` without additional constraints
- 14:52:18 [nigel]
- github-bot, end topic
- 14:53:02 [nigel]
- Topic: Consider adding support for tts:rubyAlign="spaceAround" imsc-vnext-reqs#30
- 14:53:09 [nigel]
- github: https://github.com/w3c/imsc-vnext-reqs/issues/30
- 14:53:18 [nigel]
- Pierre: I just opened this after working on it for a couple of days.
- 14:53:24 [nigel]
- .. The illustration is the best thing to look at.
- 14:53:38 [nigel]
- .. Today the only thing that's allowed is center, which is the bottom illustration.
- 14:53:58 [nigel]
- .. The feedback I received is that it doesn't work when the ruby base is very long, because
- 14:54:09 [nigel]
- .. bunching up the ruby text makes it less easy to read.
- 14:54:20 [nigel]
- .. The space around example (top example) is preferred.
- 14:54:42 [nigel]
- Cyril: No objection, but the examples .. are they from a real example?
- 14:54:49 [nigel]
- Pierre: I'm told this happens in real subtitles.
- 14:54:56 [nigel]
- Cyril: Ok, I have no objection.
- 14:55:18 [nigel]
- Pierre: I'd like more information before finalising my own opinion. Cyril, I'll try to get as
- 14:55:25 [nigel]
- .. many real examples as possible.
- 14:55:36 [nigel]
- Cyril: I'll check with Netflix if we have any opinions and examples too.
- 14:55:49 [nigel]
- Pierre: Thank you. Also there's a subtle difference between spaceAround and spaceBetween.
- 14:56:02 [nigel]
- .. Right now my research says adding spaceAround would address most of the concerns.
- 14:56:23 [nigel]
- .. What I hear this morning is there are no immediate concerns to allowing it.
- 14:56:32 [nigel]
- Cyril: To be on the safe side we should maybe implement all values.
- 14:56:45 [nigel]
- .. Once you've implemented spaceAround and spaceBetween then adding withBase is not
- 14:56:48 [nigel]
- .. that difficult.
- 14:57:01 [nigel]
- Pierre: Yes, I don't know what CSS supports other than spaceAround, which is the initial value,
- 14:57:05 [nigel]
- .. so seems pretty safe.
- 14:57:21 [nigel]
- Cyril: Do you prefer restricting IMSC 1.1 to a limited set of values and then increasing them
- 14:57:26 [nigel]
- .. later if there is CSS support.
- 14:57:40 [nigel]
- Pierre: I'd rather go down that path, it avoids misuse. It's not an easy question.
- 14:57:57 [nigel]
- .. Do please ask the question Cyril about supporting all of them. If CSS supports all of them
- 14:58:04 [nigel]
- .. then that makes it a lot easier in my mind.
- 14:58:31 [nigel]
- SUMMARY: Research continuing, consider adding all values if CSS supports them.
- 14:58:55 [nigel]
- Topic: tts:fontShear should be tts:shear imsc-vnext-reqs#24
- 14:59:00 [nigel]
- github: https://github.com/w3c/imsc-vnext-reqs/issues/24
- 14:59:21 [nigel]
- Cyril: I think it should be lineShear. I know it is not supported in CSS, because it requires
- 14:59:34 [nigel]
- .. breaking lines into separate paragraphs, but lineShear is what people expect in terms of
- 14:59:40 [nigel]
- .. rendering, in all the examples.
- 14:59:52 [nigel]
- Pierre: The author can do that by creating two `p`s.
- 15:00:02 [nigel]
- Cyril: The implementation can do it by breaking into `p`s.
- 15:00:19 [nigel]
- Pierre: It's not simple, and it means if you ever want block shear then you can't - you can't
- 15:00:28 [nigel]
- .. have the flexibility to shear each `p`.
- 15:00:41 [nigel]
- .. I did ask about line breaks in Japanese subtitles and my understanding is it is not acceptable
- 15:00:50 [nigel]
- .. to let line wrap wrap lines.
- 15:00:57 [nigel]
- Cyril: That's not the case, we use that all the time.
- 15:01:11 [nigel]
- Pierre: The feedback I received is that authors want to control line breaks and you cannot
- 15:01:18 [nigel]
- .. just break anywhere in Japanese.
- 15:01:31 [nigel]
- Cyril: My concern is that using multiple `p`s can mess up the timing. It makes the document
- 15:01:38 [nigel]
- .. much simpler if you have one `p` per region or per event.
- 15:01:57 [nigel]
- Nigel: How are we going to figure this out?
- 15:02:07 [nigel]
- Cyril: I think we need to gather more feedback.
- 15:02:16 [nigel]
- .. Would it be an option so support both shear and lineShear?
- 15:02:30 [nigel]
- Pierre: Supporting lineShear is going to be extremely difficult.
- 15:02:35 [nigel]
- Nigel: Because we're missing something in CSS?
- 15:02:44 [nigel]
- Pierre: Yes it only allows shearing of blocks.
- 15:02:53 [nigel]
- Nigel: Yes, I found that in my research too.
- 15:03:14 [nigel]
- Pierre: The overall challenge is turning a bunch of lines into a bunch of `p`s requires
- 15:03:33 [nigel]
- .. restructuring the entire span tree. With rubys on top of that it's going to be hard to
- 15:03:48 [nigel]
- .. implement and also I suspect brittle. I don't want us to understaimate the complexity
- 15:03:52 [nigel]
- .. of doing this correctly.
- 15:03:59 [nigel]
- s/staim/estim
- 15:04:11 [nigel]
- Nigel: I have a suggestion that we raise this requirement with the CSS WG.
- 15:04:44 [nigel]
- .. I think the requirement is to be able to apply shear to line areas.
- 15:04:57 [nigel]
- Pierre: Yes, like many of our requests, CSS does not deal with lines, but we need to.
- 15:05:19 [nigel]
- Nigel: Do we ever need to shear spans within a line?
- 15:05:27 [nigel]
- Pierre: I'm not aware of that requirement
- 15:05:33 [nigel]
- Cyril: Me neither - normally it is the entire line.
- 15:05:47 [nigel]
- Pierre: I'm fairly certain that tts:fontShear is not needed for subtitles and captions.
- 15:06:01 [nigel]
- .. Ideally both lineShear and shear would be supported, but lineShear is challenging to implement.
- 15:06:10 [nigel]
- .. Is IMSC 1.1 broken if lineShear is not supported?
- 15:07:02 [nigel]
- Nigel: My proposal is to support shear for now, raise an issue with CSS WG for lineshear
- 15:07:12 [nigel]
- .. with the intent of adding support for it to a future version of IMSC 1.1.
- 15:07:17 [nigel]
- Pierre: I like that approach for now.
- 15:07:36 [nigel]
- .. Also Glenn filed another issue recently with CSS recently too, which we should track.
- 15:07:55 [nigel]
- Nigel: I have a list in the agenda actually.
- 15:08:11 [nigel]
- Cyril: One concern about shear is what if the user changes the font size and suddenly you
- 15:08:22 [nigel]
- .. have line wrapping, then the alignment is not desired.
- 15:08:33 [nigel]
- Pierre: If you shear as the entire `p` is the result completely objectionable?
- 15:08:48 [nigel]
- .. For 2 lines there's a very subtle difference, but with 4 lines you see a pretty big difference.
- 15:09:07 [nigel]
- .. Not being Japanese, I don't know if the result is unacceptable or just a bit strange or
- 15:09:20 [nigel]
- .. annoying.
- 15:09:27 [nigel]
- Cyril: I'll come back to you on this one.
- 15:09:33 [nigel]
- Pierre: Thank you, I will continue to dig on this too.
- 15:10:13 [nigel]
- ACTION: Pierre to raise an issue with CSS WG requesting support for lineShear
- 15:10:16 [trackbot]
- Created ACTION-512 - Raise an issue with css wg requesting support for lineshear [on Pierre-Anthony Lemieux - due 2018-06-21].
- 15:10:54 [nigel]
- Pierre: I think it is clear that we will replace fontShear with shear, and deal with lineShear
- 15:10:58 [nigel]
- .. separately?
- 15:11:07 [nigel]
- Cyril: I'd rather make one pull request for the shear part.
- 15:11:17 [nigel]
- Pierre: We know fontShear is bad so we need to address that now.
- 15:11:29 [nigel]
- Cyril: Just add an editor's note to the pull request that we're considering adding lineShear
- 15:11:36 [nigel]
- Pierre: Sounds like a good solution.
- 15:12:13 [nigel]
- SUMMARY: @palemieux to raise an issue with CSS WG, and to add an ed note to the pull request to note ongoing query re lineShear.
- 15:12:59 [nigel]
- PROPOSAL: Drop fontShear support and add shear support, with continuing consideration for lineShear
- 15:13:11 [nigel]
- Cyril: We would prefer support for lineShear but not shear. We don't think we are going to
- 15:13:14 [nigel]
- .. use shear at all.
- 15:13:35 [nigel]
- Nigel: OK I won't record a resolution for that.
- 15:13:49 [nigel]
- SUMMARY: Continue to investigate options for using shear and lineShear
- 15:14:20 [nigel]
- Cyril: I would suggest adding both shear and lineShear and add a note to lineShear to say
- 15:14:40 [nigel]
- .. we are investigating implementation difficulties given CSS, and add a note to shear
- 15:14:55 [nigel]
- .. saying we are investigating line alignment issues. Then we can add both and remove one
- 15:15:03 [nigel]
- .. or the other [or neither] later.
- 15:15:10 [nigel]
- Pierre: That's fine with me
- 15:15:36 [nigel]
- SUMMARY: Temporarily add shear and lineShear with editorial notes against both, pending a later resolution.
- 15:16:09 [nigel]
- Topic: Exclude support for blur radius in tts:textShadow imsc-vnext-reqs#27
- 15:16:16 [nigel]
- github: https://github.com/w3c/imsc-vnext-reqs/issues/27
- 15:17:49 [nigel]
- Nigel: Looking at this, it seems like there's good CSS support already for blur and some of
- 15:18:02 [nigel]
- .. the examples of using a large diffuse shadow really need blur to look good.
- 15:18:15 [nigel]
- Pierre: The motivation here is that 708 does not support blur.
- 15:19:02 [nigel]
- Nigel: Are you asserting that the requirement for subtitles is only derived from 708?
- 15:19:18 [nigel]
- Pierre: Yes. For traditional subtitles text outline is used not text shadow.
- 15:20:06 [nigel]
- Nigel: It would help if I could dig out an example here but I am pretty sure I have seen
- 15:20:15 [nigel]
- .. examples that do use shadow. Requesting more time!
- 15:20:23 [nigel]
- Pierre: Absolutely, that would help us make the right decision.
- 15:20:47 [nigel]
- Nigel: In the meantime I assume that the implementation cost is very low because you
- 15:20:54 [nigel]
- .. can just pass the blur value to CSS.
- 15:21:05 [nigel]
- Pierre: I'm not worried about CSS implementation here but I am worried about other
- 15:21:55 [nigel]
- .. implementation techniques, given why we support textShadow, i.e. 708.
- 15:22:10 [nigel]
- Nigel: We're not overall constrained by 708 for implementability.
- 15:22:23 [nigel]
- Pierre: Right. If you could find examples that would be really good evidence.
- 15:22:27 [nigel]
- Nigel: Okay I'll have a look.
- 15:22:45 [nigel]
- SUMMARY: Continue to look for supporting use cases
- 15:23:11 [nigel]
- github-bot, end topic
- 15:26:03 [nigel]
- Topic: Miscellaneous editorial fixes imsc#388
- 15:26:09 [nigel]
- github: https://github.com/w3c/imsc/pull/388
- 15:26:52 [nigel]
- Nigel: Given that Stefan and I have given feedback, what do we need to discuss in the meeting?
- 15:27:05 [nigel]
- Pierre: I'd like to walk through your feedback Nigel so we can close this and move on.
- 15:27:17 [nigel]
- .. It's important to merge this pull request to allow other work to proceed.
- 15:28:34 [nigel]
- Pierre: You've requested that features link back to constraints.
- 15:28:46 [nigel]
- Nigel: Yes, based on whether there are conformance keywords, rather than just limiting
- 15:28:51 [nigel]
- .. to SHALLs and SHALL NOTs.
- 15:28:56 [nigel]
- Pierre: Okay, I can deal with that.
- 15:29:21 [nigel]
- .. There a bunch of things that you and Stefan noted that are related to changes in TTML2
- 15:29:34 [nigel]
- .. but this pull request is not intended to address those. I want to deal with the TTML2
- 15:30:13 [nigel]
- .. feature refactoring separately, and not address https://github.com/w3c/imsc/pull/388#discussion_r195347251
- 15:30:15 [nigel]
- .. here.
- 15:30:22 [nigel]
- Nigel: Okay, have we got an issue open for it?
- 15:30:31 [nigel]
- Pierre: We can open an omnibus issue - it's next on my list.
- 15:30:43 [nigel]
- Nigel: Sure, I don't mind taking that approach to allow this to continue.
- 15:33:16 [nigel]
- Pierre: [colour contrast question]
- 15:33:42 [nigel]
- Nigel: If the answer is "no" you haven't checked then fine, put that on and raise an issue
- 15:33:48 [nigel]
- .. to deal with it, then we can proceed.
- 15:33:52 [nigel]
- Pierre: Okay, I can do that.
- 15:34:47 [nigel]
- Nigel: [TTML2 prohibition comment] I think you mean introduced rather than specified?
- 15:35:07 [nigel]
- Pierre: No, really everything in TTML2. I think we should omit prohibited things. It's been
- 15:35:28 [nigel]
- .. a source of errors when we tried to track features in TTML2 so it makes it easier to
- 15:35:39 [nigel]
- .. maintain if we just include features with some support, and easier to read.
- 15:37:11 [nigel]
- Nigel: I think we need to include all dependent features that are potential parts or related
- 15:37:30 [nigel]
- .. to bigger "group" features even if they are in fact prohibited, just for clarity. The
- 15:37:47 [nigel]
- .. `#extent-auto-version-2` comment above is a good example.
- 15:37:51 [nigel]
- Pierre: That makes sense, that will be done.
- 15:38:09 [nigel]
- Nigel: We can move that into the TTML2 feature change mop-up issue?
- 15:38:14 [nigel]
- Pierre: Yes, absolutely.
- 15:38:51 [nigel]
- i/Nigel: I think/Nigel: [TTML2 features comment]
- 15:39:03 [nigel]
- Pierre: I wanted to make sure that we didn't think that excluding prohibited features is a
- 15:39:14 [nigel]
- .. bad idea. That is the major substantial change in this pull request.
- 15:39:57 [nigel]
- Nigel: Just testing the idea. Is it clear and unambiguous? Yes.
- 15:40:04 [nigel]
- .. Is it helpful for implementers? Not sure.
- 15:40:13 [nigel]
- Pierre: That's not clear to me either.
- 15:40:22 [nigel]
- .. For authors it's much easier.
- 15:41:40 [nigel]
- Cyril: It's easier from an editor's point of view.
- 15:41:44 [nigel]
- .. I think I'm fine with that.
- 15:42:29 [nigel]
- Nigel: One more point - the deprecation warning on ittp:progressivelyDecodable.
- 15:42:32 [nigel]
- Pierre: I'll add that.
- 15:42:56 [nigel]
- .. If I make those changes we discussed will you be able to approve them early tomorrow your time Nigel?
- 15:43:01 [nigel]
- Nigel: Yes, I don't see why not.
- 15:43:27 [nigel]
- SUMMARY: Pierre to make changes as discussed.
- 15:43:30 [nigel]
- github-bot, end topic
- 15:43:35 [nigel]
- TOPIC: IMSC 1.1 schedule
- 15:44:23 [nigel]
- Pierre: The moratorium is not at a perfect time, so it'll be hard to do a CR2 by June 28.
- 15:45:16 [nigel]
- Nigel: We should stagger after TTML2 so that we aren't hit in IMSC 1.1 by late substantive
- 15:45:22 [nigel]
- .. changes to TTML2.
- 15:45:42 [nigel]
- Pierre: Given the moratorium we should plan for CR2 to be ready on July 17 when publications
- 15:45:45 [nigel]
- .. resume.
- 15:45:51 [nigel]
- Nigel: To request the transition then?
- 15:46:12 [nigel]
- Pierre: No we should have on the Directors desk on July 17 the transition request.
- 15:46:36 [nigel]
- Nigel: Then publication will be July 24
- 15:46:45 [nigel]
- Pierre: Another moratorium begins July 25
- 15:46:51 [nigel]
- Nigel: So we want publication in that window.
- 15:47:12 [nigel]
- Pierre: Yes
- 15:47:25 [nigel]
- Nigel: Thierry, what would you recommend to expedite this?
- 15:47:43 [nigel]
- Thierry: I think we should get it to the Director ahead of the "geek week" moratorium,
- 15:47:49 [nigel]
- .. during which there is poor availability for the team.
- 15:48:30 [nigel]
- .. We need both the transition request accepted and then the publication in that window.
- 15:50:17 [nigel]
- Nigel: Can we do a CfC on June 21 and make the transition request on July 5 to ensure
- 15:50:25 [nigel]
- .. we are good to publish in that window? Is that feasible?
- 15:51:07 [nigel]
- Pierre: If the CfC starts on June 28 then it ends July 12 and the transition request could
- 15:52:05 [nigel]
- .. be made on July 16.
- 15:52:17 [nigel]
- Nigel: [concern about staff availability to draft transition request]
- 15:52:37 [nigel]
- Thierry: I can help draft it ahead of geek week, and we can use the trick that Philippe
- 15:52:40 [nigel]
- .. mentioned for TTML2 earlier.
- 15:53:06 [nigel]
- .. Why don't I draft it for the 5th, then Nigel you and I can talk through any issues on the 6th,
- 15:53:43 [nigel]
- .. then it can be submitted and be ready for the Director on the 16th, and be published
- 15:53:58 [nigel]
- .. by the 26th (the last permitted date before the summer moratorium).
- 15:54:04 [nigel]
- Nigel: Okay, sounds like it would work.
- 15:54:24 [nigel]
- Pierre: Ok
- 15:54:37 [nigel]
- Thierry: So we should have a response on the 23rd and I can request publication on the 26th.
- 15:54:42 [nigel]
- Pierre: Sounds like a good plan.
- 15:54:55 [nigel]
- Thierry: Can you provide an ED close to the CR by the 5th?
- 15:55:10 [nigel]
- Pierre: Yes, based on this plan the goal is to get CR2 ready by June 28
- 15:55:12 [nigel]
- Nigel: +1
- 15:55:26 [nigel]
- Pierre: Editorially that can work, I think we have those issues regarding rubyAlign and
- 15:55:41 [nigel]
- .. shear and I think that we will try to make progress quickly. In the worst case we can
- 15:55:51 [nigel]
- .. add features and mark them as at risk. So it is possible.
- 15:56:11 [nigel]
- Nigel: Putting shear and lineShear at risk would be an excellent way to give us time to
- 15:56:16 [nigel]
- .. deal with those issues.
- 15:56:27 [nigel]
- Pierre: Yes, and for rubyAlign too, we could put some values at risk.
- 15:56:39 [nigel]
- .. Okay, that gives me good confidence.
- 15:57:13 [nigel]
- Topic: Meeting Close
- 15:57:21 [nigel]
- Nigel: We've completed our agenda, thank you.
- 15:57:27 [nigel]
- Pierre: Thanks for the great input on the issues.
- 16:07:47 [nigel]
- Nigel: Great, let's adjourn! See you next week. [adjourns meeting]
- 16:07:50 [nigel]
- rrsagent, make minutes
- 16:07:50 [RRSAgent]
- I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2018/06/14-tt-minutes.html nigel
- 16:11:57 [nigel]
- s|https://w3c.github.io/spec-releases/milestones/?cr=2018-06-28&noFPWD=true||
- 16:12:34 [nigel]
- i/Topic: TTML2 CR2 publication/.. let's take that offline for now.
- 16:17:00 [nigel]
- rrsagent, make minutes
- 16:17:00 [RRSAgent]
- I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2018/06/14-tt-minutes.html nigel
- 16:21:10 [nigel]
- scribeOptions: -final -noEmbedDiagnostics
- 16:21:11 [nigel]
- rrsagent, make minutes
- 16:21:11 [RRSAgent]
- I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2018/06/14-tt-minutes.html nigel
- 16:34:32 [Zakim]
- Zakim has left #tt
- 16:39:15 [nigel]
- nigel has changed the topic to: TTWG meetings Thursdays 1000 Boston time. Minutes for most recent meeting: https://www.w3.org/2018/06/14-tt-minutes.html Agenda for the next call will be posted on Tuesday or Wednesday.