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.