14:00:13 RRSAgent has joined #tt 14:00:13 logging to https://www.w3.org/2018/10/11-tt-irc 14:00:15 RRSAgent, make logs public 14:00:15 Zakim has joined #tt 14:00:17 Meeting: Timed Text Working Group Teleconference 14:00:18 Date: 11 October 2018 14:00:32 Log: https://www.w3.org/2018/10/11-tt-irc 14:01:16 Present: Nigel 14:01:20 Regrets: None 14:01:22 Chair: Nigel 14:01:26 scribe: nigel 14:01:44 atai2 has joined #tt 14:02:18 Present+ Pierre 14:03:00 Present+ Cyril 14:04:09 Present+ Glenn 14:04:27 Topic: This meeting 14:04:41 cyril has joined #tt 14:04:49 Nigel: Today, we have TTML Profile Registry and TPAC 2018. There's one issue reopened 14:05:08 .. by r12a which we might quickly cover, a TTML2 issue. 14:05:20 .. Any other business, or particular points to raise? 14:06:24 Present+ Andreas 14:06:50 group: [no other business] 14:07:45 Topic: Handling non-kana text for rubyAlign with spaceAround or spaceBetween ttml2#251 14:07:51 github: https://github.com/w3c/ttml2/issues/251 14:08:12 Nigel: @r12a reopened this. It looks like we agreed to make a test for this case, but I do 14:08:18 .. not think I could find one in the ttml2-tests suite. 14:08:48 .. Glenn suggested moving it to 2ed milestone. 14:09:03 .. I also wondered if we could create a test that's not formally part of the Implementation 14:09:11 .. Report test suite, to complete this action. 14:09:27 Glenn: We have some tests in the test suite that are excluded from the IR via an exclude 14:09:31 .. flag in the manifest files. 14:09:47 .. The case that that issue involves is what do you do if you have ruby that consists of say 14:10:04 .. latin words, or English words, or pinyin translations of Chinese that are not kana or kanji 14:10:27 .. characters, that is, the ruby text is not kana/kanji. In the context of rubyAlign, for example 14:10:40 .. spaceAround, spaceBetween, where do you put the space, do you parse out words and 14:10:55 .. put the space around them like with normal text alignment justification spacing or do 14:11:08 .. you put them between the individual glyph areas for the roman characters, i.e. 14:11:20 .. basically letter-spacing. That was the original issue that was filed. We said we would 14:11:37 .. create some tests but we unintentionally did not do that. This fell through the cracks 14:11:48 .. I guess because the issue had been closed out. So I think we can create some tests for 14:12:01 .. it. The question about the tests in my mind is their artificial nature. We don't have any 14:12:13 .. subtitles that might actually use these, at least I have no real world data about subtitles 14:12:28 .. using them. I have to admit it is admissible in the spec which is vague on the subject. 14:12:33 .. The technical point of the issue remains valid. 14:13:02 Nigel: Can anyone volunteer to take an action to create those non-IR tests? 14:13:31 Glenn: I don't see any option but to do this in 2ed. 14:13:44 Nigel: We don't have to make any change to 2ed unless there's feedback requesting it. 14:13:52 .. For now it is enough just to create the tests. 14:14:05 Glenn: Are we going to solicit new feedback from implementers that we haven't already 14:14:20 .. done before? There's only one implementation that reported on rubyAlign presentation 14:14:32 .. in the IR, which is for TTPE. If we don't do anything new then it would fall into Skynav's 14:14:43 .. camp to address this which means I have to look at our internal schedule. It's not a 14:15:02 .. priority item for us because nobody is clamouring for Pinyin and Ruby in subtitles right 14:15:13 .. now. I would rather push it off a little bit until we get into 2ed processing. 14:15:36 Nigel: Can I suggest we create an issue on the ttml2-tests repo to create this? 14:15:58 Glenn: Sure, that's reasonable. I'll create a TTML2 2nd Ed milestone under that repo too 14:16:12 .. and label it under that since I have already released the test suite under the PR milestone. 14:16:14 Nigel: Ok. 14:16:33 .. Any other points to add on this topic? 14:16:58 SUMMARY: @skynavga to raise an issue on w3c/ttml2-tests for creation of this test. 14:17:05 github-bot, end topic 14:17:26 Topic: TTML Profile registry 14:19:14 Nigel: I've just assigned myself to 3 of the open issues. 14:19:56 .. We need volunteers to make changes to address the other open issues by pull request 14:20:11 .. so that we can publish it alongside the 3 Recs when the time comes (13 Nov is the plan) 14:20:16 Regrets: Thierry 14:20:39 Topic: TPAC 2018 14:21:34 Nigel: I made the most recent changes to our agenda wiki page after last week's meeting 14:21:44 .. to add the TTML Profile Registry as a topic. 14:21:59 .. Any other proposals for agenda or scheduling of discussions? 14:22:16 Andreas: I'm not sure where is the best place to discuss this, in TTWG or M&E IG. IRT is 14:22:26 glenn has joined #tt 14:22:34 .. working in a European project on accessibility in immersive environments especially 14:22:46 .. 360ยบ videos. It would be useful to report on the current results and what this means 14:22:58 .. for standardisation. I think this is in the TTWG Charter but it also touches some areas 14:23:13 .. that may be interesting for a wider audience, so maybe Nigel and Chris Needham it 14:23:24 .. would be good to discuss with you where the best event is to discuss this. 14:23:41 Added ttml2-tests issue re: TTML2 issue #251 at https://github.com/w3c/ttml2-tests/issues/200. 14:24:12 Nigel: If we can do this in the joint session when TTWG is with M&E IG would that be good? 14:24:19 Andreas: Yes, that could be good, yes. 14:24:47 .. I will send you and Chris and Mark a note about this and explain what we could present 14:24:53 .. and that would be a good starting point. 14:25:13 Nigel: Sounds like a good idea - I will tell Chris I will support that. 14:26:07 Nigel: As you say, our Charter says: "Investigate caption format requirements for 360 Degree, AR and VR video content." 14:26:23 .. It is also in the M&E IG's scope to investigate requirements, so it makes sense to do this 14:26:25 .. together. 14:26:40 -> https://www.w3.org/2018/05/timed-text-charter.html#scope TTWG Charter, Scope section 14:27:26 Nigel: I will add something to our wiki page so we can remember this topic is on our list. 14:28:34 Topic: TTML Profile registry 14:28:45 Pierre: I'm looking at the open pull request that has been outstanding for a while. 14:30:13 .. There are a bunch of comments here, how should we address those. 14:30:56 Nigel: None of the comments are about any content of the pull request, I think we can 14:31:10 .. merge it now with a view to the gh-pages version being an ED that we consider for 14:31:13 .. publication as a new Note. 14:31:24 Pierre: Okay, I'll go ahead and merge that then. [merges it] 14:31:26 Nigel: Thank you. 14:31:50 .. Does that close issue 40? 14:31:54 Pierre: Yes, I'll close that. 14:32:33 Nigel: I don't think that pull request dealt with #41, which was about IMSC 1.0.1? 14:32:39 Pierre: [just looking at it] 14:32:59 .. No, it doesn't, I can deal with that. 14:34:10 Nigel: The only thing I think we don't know at the moment is how to resolve #38, 14:34:20 .. the difference between processor profiles and content profiles. 14:34:32 Pierre: We may need to keep processor profiles just for TTML1. 14:34:43 Glenn: One option might be to keep processor profiles and have a column for implied 14:34:45 .. content profile. 14:35:35 Pierre: The reality is most readers will just look up the 4 character code. 14:36:07 Nigel: The simplest thing is to just say the document lists processor profiles and add 14:36:17 .. some informative text about content profiles. 14:36:29 Glenn: I think point to the spec about content profiles without elaborating on it. It's worthy 14:36:34 .. of a footnote and that's about it. 14:36:51 .. It is certainly worth clarifying that it is not a registry for content profiles per se. 14:37:10 Nigel: I think I'm hearing consensus that we scope this document to processor profiles. 14:37:25 Glenn: And we should say the motivation, that TTML1 only had processor profiles. 14:38:06 Nigel: I haven't been tracking this discussion in #38 so I'll add a summary into the issue 14:38:08 .. after this meeting. 14:38:31 Pierre: Looking at #41 re IMSC 1.0.1, I think that we probably have to list both specifications 14:38:45 .. because if someone had referenced IMSC1, they should still be able to find the proper 14:39:07 .. profile identifier in the table. It should say IMSC1 OR or AND IMSC 1.0.1. I will modify 14:39:12 .. it as is and create the pull request that way. 14:39:15 Nigel: Makes sense. 14:40:21 Cyril: You mentioned in an email that the Note actually supersedes the specs on the media 14:40:33 .. type registration. How is that possible? The Note has no standard status, right? 14:40:45 .. We could change the Note without going through the voting process. I'm surprised by 14:40:47 .. that. 14:41:02 Glenn: It has whatever status that people who use it attribute to it. You're right, 14:41:17 .. publishing as a WG Note doesn't mean that W3C membership has reviewed it. That's 14:43:14 .. fine, it's done all the time in W3C. Registries in particular. 14:43:20 NIgel: https://www.iana.org/assignments/media-types/application/ttml+xml points to our registry 14:43:24 s/NIgel/Nigel 14:44:08 Nigel: As far as I can tell the IANA registration is normative. 14:44:22 Glenn: IANA's requirements in terms of what they reference is fairly loose and has no 14:44:38 .. trouble pointing to a WG Note. In a sense it does have normative force as far as IANA 14:44:40 .. is concerned. 14:44:54 Pierre: By the way it is a catch-22, because comments from IANA usually come after 14:45:16 .. things are settled in Rec. 14:45:28 Nigel: That's what drove us down this path of taking the registration out of TTML. 14:45:43 Glenn: I think I argued this for that very reason. At least our Note can point back at 14:45:55 .. TTML1 as a snapshot of where we were at the time. That leaves the codecs parameter 14:46:08 .. in a strange status. I don't think anyone is complaining about it. 14:46:13 Nigel: I don't think it is a strange status. 14:46:41 Cyril: It's strange. 14:46:48 Pierre: We should have taken it out of TTML1 3rd Ed. 14:47:01 Nigel: Oh yes, we didn't do that, it is still there. I wonder if we can remove it now as an error. 14:47:10 Pierre: It's normative, and IANA does not point to it. 14:47:21 Nigel: I should query if we can remove it at this stage as an error. 14:47:32 Pierre: At least open an issue. 14:48:24 Nigel: I raised https://github.com/w3c/ttml1/issues/371 14:48:56 Nigel: We're not going to change the IANA registration to point anywhere else. 14:49:07 Pierre: It's not fatal to have it in TTML1 but it is indeed confusing. 14:49:47 .. Could we change the text in the Note that says ... 14:49:59 Cyril: Could we clarify that the Note supersedes the TTML1 definition? 14:50:11 Glenn: Or augments it. I don't think we can remove the definition in TTML1 because the 14:50:21 .. 3rd Ed supersedes the 2nd which supersedes the 1st. 14:50:32 Cyril: I'm fine with that but want to be clear that this document is more recent than the 14:50:42 .. spec. It is misleading to say that TTML1 defines the MIME type. 14:51:15 Pierre: Can we start the document by stating that it is the definitive document? 14:51:42 Glenn: We could add an errata to TTML1 3rd Ed to remove the media type registration. 14:51:57 Pierre: Yes, but still someone should address Cyril's concerns. If we remove it from TTML1 14:52:11 .. 3rd Ed then it's more reason to clarify that the registry is the definitive definition of the 14:52:22 .. content type including the definition of codecs. 14:53:05 Glenn: I can propose a text change here. 14:53:37 Nigel: I've assigned issue 45 to Glenn. 14:53:55 Glenn: I see that in TTML2 we left the renumbered appendix in place, but vacated the 14:54:07 .. content saying it has been deleted, without pointing to where the content lives. 14:54:20 .. I need to create a 2nd Ed issue to add a link into that appendix D of TTML2. 14:54:57 Nigel: That wouldn't be a normative change, we might be able to make an editorial 14:55:00 .. change before Rec. 14:55:12 Glenn: Maybe, I'd rather do it as an errata though, which we can do quickly. 14:55:15 Pierre: I agree. 14:55:27 .. We should be avoiding making changes before Rec. 14:56:24 Nigel: Shall we go ahead and create pull requests and come back to this next week? 14:56:27 Glenn: Sounds good. 14:56:48 Topic: CSS review 14:57:05 -> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tt/2018Oct/0011.html Fantasai's email re CSS Text 3 & 4 14:57:22 Nigel: Thanks to Glenn's prompt last week I asked Elika to resend the email to TTWG, 14:57:36 .. which she did. I wonder if we are in a position to confirm that the changes made to 14:58:03 .. CSS Text Levels 3 & 4 meet the subtitle and caption requirements that we put forward? 14:58:14 .. I'd like to be able to respond from TTWG to CSS WG on this. 14:58:41 .. Specifically text-group-align and line-padding are in Level 4. 14:59:05 .. I had a look and they looked good to me, but I wondered if there were other views. 14:59:09 Glenn: I haven't looked at them yet. 14:59:36 Nigel: I'm assuming this isn't implemented anywhere yet. 14:59:43 Pierre: I haven't paid attention to that but will have a look. 14:59:55 .. I also noticed that there's something called NGLayoutOption in Chrome, and I'm 15:00:10 .. wondering if that will help with Chrome's implementation of layout for Arabic and Japanese. 15:00:15 Glenn: Which limitations? 15:00:40 Pierre: The fact that spans automatically prevent ligatures. 15:00:53 .. There's apparently a new generation layout engine of some kind. I've not tried it. That's 15:00:58 .. something else to get around to doing at some point. 15:01:12 Nigel: That'd be good to know, if you get any results on that. 15:01:32 .. On this specific message I won't feed anything back right now, but I'd like to be able 15:01:46 .. to do so, perhaps next week. 15:09:12 Topic: Rec publication 15:10:07 Nigel: It's not clear if we need a WG decision for Rec transition, and Thierry's timeline 15:11:38 .. doesn't clarify it either. I don't think we do, however, in case we do, I should get the CfC 15:11:49 .. out by 19th October, so if we can have Rec versions ready by next week then we can 15:12:32 .. begin the decision review period during next week's call. 15:12:37 Pierre: I may not be on the call, but go ahead. 15:13:27 Topic: Meeting close 15:13:40 Nigel: Thanks everyone, we've completed our agenda for today, our meeting next 15:14:03 .. week will be the last before TPAC - I expect we will cover the profile registry, TPAC 15:14:13 .. agenda and Rec publication decision. 15:14:33 .. [adjourns meeting] 15:14:37 rrsagent, make minutes 15:14:37 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2018/10/11-tt-minutes.html nigel 15:14:56 github-bot, end topic 15:15:14 s/github-bot, end topic//g 15:15:16 rrsagent, make minutes 15:15:16 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2018/10/11-tt-minutes.html nigel 15:15:47 s/Topic: TTML Profile registry/Topic: TTML Profile registry (revisited) 15:15:52 rrsagent, make minutes 15:15:52 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2018/10/11-tt-minutes.html nigel 15:21:36 s/.. in the IR/Glenn: in the IR 15:21:49 s/.. done before/Glenn: done before 15:22:22 rrsagent, make minutes 15:22:22 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2018/10/11-tt-minutes.html nigel 15:22:48 ScribeOptions: -final -noEmbedDiagnostics 15:22:50 rrsagent, make minutes 15:22:50 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2018/10/11-tt-minutes.html nigel 15:23:33 atai2 has left #tt 16:24:06 Zakim has left #tt