IRC log of tt on 2018-06-21

Timestamps are in UTC.

14:00:29 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #tt
14:00:29 [RRSAgent]
logging to https://www.w3.org/2018/06/21-tt-irc
14:00:31 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs public
14:00:31 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #tt
14:00:33 [trackbot]
Meeting: Timed Text Working Group Teleconference
14:00:33 [trackbot]
Date: 21 June 2018
14:01:13 [nigel]
Log: https://www.w3.org/2018/06/21-tt-irc
14:01:47 [nigel]
Present: Nigel
14:01:49 [nigel]
Chair: Nigel
14:01:52 [nigel]
Regrets: Andreas
14:01:57 [nigel]
scribe: nigel
14:02:03 [nigel]
Present+ Thierry
14:02:08 [cyril]
cyril has joined #tt
14:02:28 [nigel]
Present+ Pierre
14:03:09 [nigel]
Present+ Cyril, Glenn
14:03:20 [nigel]
Topic: This meeting
14:03:34 [nigel]
Glenn: [can only stay 45 minutes]
14:03:41 [nigel]
Nigel: Thanks for letting us know.
14:03:52 [nigel]
.. Any other time constraints from anyone?
14:03:56 [nigel]
group: [silence]
14:04:17 [nigel]
Nigel: Today we have TTML2 issues if there are any for CR2, and any comments to be
14:04:23 [nigel]
.. raised on the CfC.
14:04:51 [nigel]
.. I should also raise the way that we are responding to comments raised during the CfC period.
14:05:09 [nigel]
.. I don't think we have anything on TTML1. Anything on IMSC?
14:05:49 [nigel]
Pierre: There's one issue we ought to discuss, #372 re rw and rh, because you were surprised Nigel.
14:05:53 [nigel]
Nigel: Yes, let's add that.
14:06:06 [nigel]
Pierre: Also, based on feedback I've received I'm about to open another issue against the
14:06:36 [nigel]
.. requirements for rubyAlign which we could usefully discuss. It's already there actually.
14:06:54 [nigel]
.. Actually we already discussed rubyAlign so we don't need to cover that.
14:07:27 [nigel]
Nigel: We have one action on CSS.
14:07:34 [nigel]
Glenn: I have a couple of issues to discuss on TTML2.
14:08:00 [nigel]
.. There are 5 pull requests approved pending merge.
14:08:06 [nigel]
Nigel: Let's come to that, just doing the agenda now.
14:08:15 [nigel]
Glenn: I have a couple of items on TTML2 to get to.
14:08:37 [nigel]
Nigel: I don't expect anything on WebVTT. I haven't got a TPAC agenda item, but just to
14:08:44 [nigel]
.. remind everyone registration is open.
14:09:00 [nigel]
.. I've started to work on a list of topics to cover in a potential joint meeting with the M&E IG
14:09:04 [nigel]
.. which I will share.
14:09:22 [nigel]
.. Anything else for the agenda today?
14:09:29 [nigel]
group: [silence]
14:09:34 [nigel]
Nigel: Ok let's go.
14:09:43 [nigel]
Topic: TTML2 CR2
14:10:00 [nigel]
Nigel: Status report: CfC is more than half way through and there are some pull requests
14:10:14 [nigel]
.. that address comments received during the CfC period. I want to treat those as CfC
14:10:29 [nigel]
.. review comments and merge the fixes for those soon, but alert everyone to the fact
14:10:40 [nigel]
.. that is happening and encourage you to be aware when reviewing.
14:11:19 [nigel]
.. We have 5 approved pull requests pending merge, and I would propose that we merge
14:11:23 [nigel]
.. them as soon as possible.
14:11:29 [nigel]
.. Any objections to doing that?
14:12:48 [nigel]
Pierre: Not an objection, just confirmation that
14:13:35 [nigel]
.. changes to the feature list are going to be treated editorially, so we can make those
14:13:39 [nigel]
.. changes prior to PR?
14:13:49 [nigel]
Glenn: I would support that.
14:13:53 [nigel]
Pierre: I thought we had discussed it.
14:14:08 [nigel]
Glenn: I think you could argue it both ways. The feature system is on the one hand a meta-feature
14:14:21 [nigel]
.. in the sense that it is about features and it is not defining new features but labelling them.
14:14:35 [nigel]
.. On the other hand the standard profiles are normative so every time we add or change
14:14:47 [nigel]
.. one of the profiles files it is changing some normative text in the document. I would
14:14:51 [nigel]
.. prefer to take your point of view.
14:14:58 [nigel]
Pierre: I agree with your assessment.
14:15:14 [nigel]
Glenn: If we do it that way then we should say that in the SoTD to give ourselves permission
14:15:25 [nigel]
.. to do that, which could result in objections from external readers that we would have
14:15:41 [nigel]
.. to deal with. We should raise that in the transition request.
14:15:56 [nigel]
Nigel: The transition request has gone through but we can amend it.
14:16:04 [nigel]
.. I'm not hugely comfortable with this.
14:16:18 [nigel]
Pierre: If we are not comfortable with it there may be alternatives but we should talk about
14:16:36 [nigel]
.. it because there's a significant risk that we may have to modify features and the way
14:16:45 [nigel]
.. they are formulated, just because of the sheer number of them.
14:17:01 [nigel]
Glenn: Changing the feature list is not adding or subtracting syntactic or semantic
14:17:07 [nigel]
.. components of the specification.
14:18:18 [nigel]
Nigel: Here's a test: if an implementation supported a feature and that feature definition
14:18:28 [nigel]
.. was changed then it could cause that implementation to become non-conformant, so
14:18:50 [nigel]
.. from that point of view it is a normative provision and the change would be substantive.
14:18:52 [nigel]
Pierre: I agree.
14:18:56 [nigel]
Glenn: I agree.
14:19:07 [nigel]
Pierre: Then if we don't give ourselves that permission then what can we do?
14:19:23 [nigel]
Glenn: We can move it to TTML2 2nd Ed. We could note informatively that we intend to
14:19:36 [nigel]
.. make certain changes but that due to timing we were not able to do it in 1st Ed.
14:19:59 [nigel]
Nigel: Previously we tried to make editions non-substantive in change.
14:20:09 [nigel]
Glenn: It would have to go through the CR process again.
14:20:19 [nigel]
.. I wouldn't be surprised if we don't have other normative changes given the large number
14:20:22 [nigel]
.. of features.
14:20:38 [nigel]
Pierre: I understand the rules as they're written right now, but this is pretty inefficient.
14:20:56 [nigel]
.. Refactoring features is highly unlikely in practice to cause interoperability issues.
14:21:04 [nigel]
Nigel: I disagree.
14:21:11 [nigel]
Pierre: Can you point to such an implementation?
14:21:23 [nigel]
Glenn: Back to the point about making implementations non-compliant, it depends on the
14:21:40 [nigel]
.. implementation. If the implementation depends on the override route, the first processing
14:21:55 [nigel]
.. step of construct effective processor profile, then the implementation can set it to
14:22:18 [nigel]
.. whatever it wants. How many processors will not take that route?
14:22:43 [nigel]
Nigel: We have to apply this rule to content conformance and that is more likely to be
14:22:45 [nigel]
.. affected.
14:23:12 [nigel]
Glenn: If you define a content profile and use it for validation and then add a new feature
14:23:26 [nigel]
.. that could not have been prohibited but add that prohibition based on the new feature
14:23:44 [nigel]
.. then that's not going to be a problem. If you change the semantics of existing designators
14:24:01 [nigel]
.. then you may end up prohibiting syntax that was not previously prohibited.
14:24:33 [nigel]
Nigel: If you're going to create the content profile mechanism then you have to allow it to
14:24:35 [nigel]
.. be used safely.
14:24:55 [nigel]
Glenn: Ok. Clearly we can make changes on the way to 2nd Ed if we go through a CR process.
14:25:10 [nigel]
.. So going back to the question about practical issue? I am of a mind that it is very low risk
14:25:14 [nigel]
.. in causing a practical issue.
14:25:23 [nigel]
Nigel: That may be true, but it's not the test.
14:25:26 [nigel]
Glenn: That's correct.
14:25:35 [nigel]
.. If we have a consensus in the group we can present that.
14:27:06 [nigel]
Nigel: Can I make a proposal that we add a bullet to the at risk feature list to notify readers
14:27:27 [nigel]
.. that the definitions of feature designators may change. If we can do that for features
14:27:41 [nigel]
.. and then make the substantive change at PR then I'm willing to see if we can do it for
14:28:12 [nigel]
.. feature designators too.
14:28:18 [nigel]
Glenn: Like it.
14:28:30 [nigel]
s/Li/I li
14:28:50 [nigel]
.. Just adding a #profile-version-2 bullet to the at risk list might do it.
14:29:16 [nigel]
Nigel: My understanding is that the at risk list is for features that can be dropped but not
14:29:18 [nigel]
.. changed.
14:29:25 [nigel]
Thierry: You're only allowed "drop".
14:29:57 [nigel]
.. If you change a feature and it is substantial then you have to issue a new CR.
14:30:38 [nigel]
Nigel: Pierre, are you concerned that you won't be able to complete a review of the TTML2
14:30:48 [nigel]
.. feature designators during the review period?
14:30:56 [nigel]
Pierre: I expect to be done ahead of next week.
14:31:16 [nigel]
Nigel: In that case do we really need to worry about this?
14:31:36 [nigel]
Glenn: I'd be satisfied to not change the at risk list and if we get a request to change then
14:31:51 [nigel]
.. use the standard route to deal with it, i.e. to add informative text until the next edition.
14:31:56 [nigel]
Nigel: I think that might be the best way.
14:32:15 [nigel]
Glenn: We already have a changes document. Eventually we will probably have a new section
14:32:27 [nigel]
.. changes from CR2 to PR and by definition they would all need to be marked as editorial
14:32:41 [nigel]
.. but we could prominently point out editorial changes of this type, that are warnings to
14:32:49 [nigel]
.. the reader that something we found will be changed in the near future.
14:32:54 [nigel]
Nigel: Sounds like a good idea to me.
14:33:17 [nigel]
Nigel: I think we've circled round on this one and concluded that we will take no action.
14:33:21 [nigel]
.. Any other views?
14:33:25 [nigel]
..
14:33:33 [nigel]
.. Ok that's a 'no' so let's move on.
14:34:05 [nigel]
.. This arose from the question about merging approved pull requests now. Any other
14:34:08 [nigel]
.. questions or points on that?
14:34:14 [nigel]
..
14:34:38 [nigel]
.. I'm taking silence as assent, so Editor(s) you can go ahead and merge the following pull
14:35:00 [nigel]
.. requests: #836, #842, #843, #844 and #845.
14:35:17 [nigel]
.. Noting that 843, 844 and 845 are labelled "substantive".
14:35:51 [nigel]
Nigel: Any more issues from you on TTML2 Glenn?
14:35:53 [nigel]
Glenn: No.
14:36:54 [nigel]
Nigel: The other point I wanted to raise is that we're making change to the document
14:37:10 [nigel]
.. during the CfC and it would seem fair to allow it to stabilise. Are there any other
14:37:15 [nigel]
.. pull requests expected?
14:37:58 [nigel]
Glenn: There's one for issue 830 and the other for 834 which tweaks the base-related
14:38:15 [nigel]
.. features. It is going to involve adding a new feature called #base-general. To make it
14:38:28 [nigel]
.. consistent with other definitions and the ability to prohibit the more general use of #base
14:39:04 [nigel]
Nigel: There are several editorial issues too.
14:39:24 [nigel]
Pierre: Glenn and I discussed 846 and realised it hadn't been opened as an issue yet.
14:39:38 [nigel]
.. I expect to be done tomorrow with my review so hopefully we'll be very close tomorrow.
14:40:03 [nigel]
Nigel: Can we set a target to merge all the pull requests by the end of tomorrow?
14:40:08 [nigel]
Pierre: Monday is more realistic.
14:40:12 [nigel]
Glenn: I agree.
14:40:46 [nigel]
Nigel: OK
14:41:49 [nigel]
.. I issued the CfC on Wednesday 13th June, so end of Tuesday is the end of the CfC.
14:42:06 [nigel]
.. So that gives 1 day for final post-pull-request-merge reviews before the end of the CfC.
14:42:14 [nigel]
.. It's pushing the limits a little!
14:42:36 [nigel]
Glenn: Starting on the 26th, if we finish merges on the Monday, I plan to do the normal
14:42:53 [nigel]
.. pubrules and link checking which requires some minor tweaks which will require at least
14:43:04 [nigel]
.. one pull request. I'll need someone at hand to approve those quickly so I can merge them.
14:43:17 [nigel]
.. By the end of the 27th I need a package to send to staff for upload for CR2 if it is going
14:43:21 [nigel]
.. to be published on the 28th.
14:43:32 [nigel]
Thierry: The webmaster usually needs 2 days.
14:43:43 [nigel]
Glenn: If we get that done on the 26th would that be adequate?
14:43:58 [nigel]
Thierry: Yes it would be better at the end of the 26th if you can submit a package then
14:44:10 [nigel]
.. I can take care of it late on the Tuesday or early morning Wednesday my time.
14:44:27 [nigel]
Glenn: OK I'll make that a date then. I'll probably start doing the pubrules and have it done
14:44:30 [nigel]
.. by the 25th as well.
14:44:34 [nigel]
Nigel: That'd be good, thank you.
14:44:55 [nigel]
Glenn: I'll need help from another committer who can approve requests over the weekend.
14:44:59 [nigel]
Pierre: I plan to be around.
14:45:37 [nigel]
Nigel: With notice I will be able to also.
14:45:49 [nigel]
Glenn: If you could be able to check your email once a day between now and Monday that
14:45:53 [nigel]
.. would be adequate.
14:46:19 [nigel]
Nigel: Ok, with the proviso that if there's anything strange or unexpected or complicated
14:46:54 [nigel]
.. then I will probably block merging. We really need to ramp down the significance of
14:47:00 [nigel]
.. any changes from now on!
14:47:49 [nigel]
Pierre: +1 with a proviso that we need to avoid substantial changes. But if there is a real
14:48:37 [nigel]
.. blocker then it is not a reasonable answer to wait until 2nd Ed. especially if everyone agrees on the solution.
14:48:52 [nigel]
Nigel: If something substantive does come up that needs a significant change then I would
14:49:07 [nigel]
.. rather wait a few more days now than wait until 2nd Ed.
14:49:10 [nigel]
Pierre: Exactly.
14:51:59 [nigel]
Nigel: Included in the scope of those changes to be merged as soon as possible is the
14:52:17 [nigel]
.. branch with the updates to changes on that you were working on Glenn.
14:52:24 [nigel]
Glenn: I can get that done by tomorrow.
14:52:38 [nigel]
Nigel: Then we can modify the transition request to point to the ED.
14:52:43 [nigel]
Glenn: [has to drop off the call]
14:53:20 [nigel]
Topic: IMSC 1.1 requirements
14:53:27 [nigel]
Nigel: I think we had one issue to look at, #372.
14:53:57 [nigel]
Topic: Consider TTML feature(s) for rw/rh <length> units imsc#372
14:54:04 [nigel]
github: https://github.com/w3c/imsc/issues/372
14:55:12 [nigel]
Nigel: My understanding of rw and rh was that they are beneficial especially with fontSize.
14:55:26 [nigel]
Pierre: Today you can achieve the same effect using `c`. It's not pretty but you can achieve
14:55:29 [nigel]
.. that effect.
14:55:43 [nigel]
.. We have discussed those requirements for many months and nobody has suggested we
14:56:06 [nigel]
.. add them. I think it is in the "too late" category. I'd be more sympathetic if there were no
14:56:09 [nigel]
.. other way to achieve it.
14:56:14 [nigel]
Nigel: Why are we too late?
14:56:35 [nigel]
Pierre: We are about to go to CR2 and there's a cost for supporting container related dimensions.
14:57:16 [nigel]
Nigel: A syntactic cost, given that the semantic is already feasible.
14:58:04 [nigel]
Cyril: It's not because it's been there for months that we cannot change it. We have to
14:58:17 [nigel]
.. acknowledge we have mostly been working on TTML2 to finish it, so we should give
14:58:46 [nigel]
.. ourselves some quality time to look again at the requirements for IMSC 1.1.
14:58:59 [nigel]
Nigel: +1 My time has been taken up by TTML2 mainly and I would like that opportunity.
14:59:41 [nigel]
Pierre: There's a cost to implementing it.
15:00:30 [nigel]
.. So far nobody has made the argument why it is required. Don't get me wrong, I think
15:00:41 [nigel]
.. it might be useful, but just nobody has explained why it is required.
15:01:09 [nigel]
Nigel: From my perspective the requirement is driven by the errors that I see when QAing
15:01:22 [nigel]
.. TTML documents that I see, where people get the % calculations wrong.
15:02:44 [nigel]
Pierre: I don't expect anyone to adopt it.
15:03:03 [nigel]
Nigel: If it is absent from IMSC 1.1 then hypothetically EBU could not adopt it say in EBU-TT-D.
15:03:16 [nigel]
Pierre: If there were a liaison from EBU saying they wanted it then it would make the argument,
15:03:19 [nigel]
.. but there is not one.
15:03:38 [nigel]
Nigel: I'm making this comment from my own experience, that c units cause difficulties
15:04:17 [nigel]
.. and we should move towards rw and rh.
15:05:14 [nigel]
Cyril: I don't want to take a closed decision now - I need time to think about this.
15:05:40 [nigel]
Pierre: If this is needed then it should be raised as an issue against the requirements.
15:05:51 [nigel]
Nigel: Arguably Stefan has raised this issue on the wrong repo.
15:06:08 [nigel]
Pierre: Cyril, if Netflix is interested in adding rw and rh I ask that you do it super soon so
15:06:14 [nigel]
.. we can get it in and get it done.
15:06:25 [nigel]
Cyril: I don't think we need it but I will cross check today or tomorrow.
15:06:41 [nigel]
Pierre: Super. Nigel, if EBU has IMSC 1.1 adoption on its roadmap and has strong feelings
15:06:50 [nigel]
.. about rw and rh it would be good to know.
15:07:09 [nigel]
Nigel: I am not expecting any such statement.
15:07:21 [nigel]
Pierre: Or from anyone who plans to use IMSC 1.1 and has substantive input, now is the time.
15:09:14 [nigel]
Nigel: I've raised w3c/imsc-vnext-reqs#33 for this.
15:10:01 [nigel]
SUMMARY: Feature discussed, different viewpoints currently remain, requirements issue raised.
15:10:35 [nigel]
github-bot, end topic
15:10:45 [nigel]
Topic: IMSC 1.1
15:10:57 [nigel]
Pierre: I'm making great progress and should have something to present for review later
15:11:11 [nigel]
.. today, refactoring the features table to match TTML2 and fix some of the outstanding issues.
15:11:36 [nigel]
Nigel: Great! Did you have a view on the labels and colours question?
15:12:04 [nigel]
Pierre: Yes, I really liked where you and Stefan ended up. I plan to implement something
15:12:13 [nigel]
.. along the lines of what you have, putting the background and rounded corners on the
15:12:28 [nigel]
.. permitted/deprecated/permitted-deprecated label itself.
15:12:36 [nigel]
Nigel: Looking forward to seeing that.
15:13:17 [nigel]
Pierre: Thank you for doing all the prototyping work, that makes it a lot easier.
15:13:28 [nigel]
.. I plan to address that at the last moment when we are happy with the features table.
15:13:40 [nigel]
rrsagent, make minutes
15:13:40 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2018/06/21-tt-minutes.html nigel
15:13:48 [nigel]
Pierre: Can we talk about #366?
15:14:12 [nigel]
Topic: tts:position should be allowed on region only imsc#366
15:14:18 [nigel]
github: https://github.com/w3c/imsc/issues/366
15:15:13 [nigel]
Pierre: My impression is that we have trained people not to use origin and extent on content
15:15:25 [nigel]
.. elements. Certainly in IMF and ATSC we have trained people not to do it.
15:15:38 [nigel]
.. imsc.js and TTPE and EBU-TT-D does not support it, so in fact I think the trend has
15:15:50 [nigel]
.. been the opposite, that we have reiterated that you cannot do it. We have been saying
15:16:04 [nigel]
.. that for the past 2 years and I'm finally getting to the point where I'm not seeing it anymore.
15:16:26 [nigel]
Nigel: Now I really want to make sure it is on the at risk list for TTML2 because I really
15:16:30 [nigel]
.. don't want to support it.
15:16:45 [nigel]
Pierre: Based on my experience in imsc.js the feature really breaks the way TTML was
15:17:02 [nigel]
.. designed. Unless someone stands up to say they really want it I don't think we should do it.
15:17:26 [nigel]
Nigel: It is not on the at risk list for TTML2 CR2.
15:18:08 [nigel]
Pierre: TTPE doesn't support it in TTML1, I'm not sure if it supports it in TTML2.
15:18:46 [nigel]
Nigel: Does anyone want to take the action to raise an issue to add the
15:19:03 [nigel]
.. `#region-implied-animation ` to the at risk list for TTML2?
15:19:10 [nigel]
Pierre: I think it's reasonable to add it.
15:19:25 [nigel]
Nigel: If we can close this meeting early then I'll go ahead and do that.
15:21:21 [nigel]
.. Going back to the issue you want to only allow position on region? Is that only on text profile?
15:21:36 [nigel]
Pierre: The same restrictions on tts:origin should be placed on tts:position, whatever those are.
15:22:05 [nigel]
Nigel: Don't you want position on image?
15:22:14 [nigel]
Pierre: You put it on the region that the image is in.
15:22:20 [nigel]
Nigel: And you only allow one image per region?
15:22:25 [nigel]
Pierre: Correct, just like in IMSC1.
15:23:33 [nigel]
RESOLUTION: We will not support `#region-implied-animation ` in IMSC 1.1.
15:23:44 [nigel]
Nigel: We also have another resolution to do what the issue requests.
15:24:15 [nigel]
RESOLUTION: Apply the same constraints that exist on `tts:origin` to `tts:position`.
15:24:58 [nigel]
github-bot, end topic
15:30:14 [nigel]
Topic: CSS actions review
15:30:18 [nigel]
action-512?
15:30:18 [trackbot]
action-512 -- Pierre-Anthony Lemieux to Raise an issue with css wg requesting support for lineshear -- due 2018-06-21 -- OPEN
15:30:18 [trackbot]
https://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/tracker/actions/512
15:30:44 [nigel]
Nigel: The due date is today!
15:30:53 [nigel]
Pierre: realistically I will not get to this for another two weeks or so.
15:30:56 [nigel]
s/re/RE
15:30:59 [nigel]
s/RE/Re
15:31:30 [nigel]
Nigel: I've updated the due date to 5th July.
15:31:50 [nigel]
Topic: Meeting close
15:32:02 [nigel]
Nigel: We've completed our agenda for today, thank you everyone. [adjourns meeting]
15:32:57 [nigel]
rrsagent, make minutes
15:32:57 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2018/06/21-tt-minutes.html nigel
15:40:45 [nigel]
scribeOptions: -final -noEmbedDiagnostics
15:40:46 [nigel]
rrsagent, make minutes
15:40:46 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2018/06/21-tt-minutes.html nigel
16:27:21 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #tt