15:00:03 RRSAgent has joined #tt 15:00:03 logging to https://www.w3.org/2018/11/15-tt-irc 15:00:05 RRSAgent, make logs public 15:00:05 Zakim has joined #tt 15:00:07 Meeting: Timed Text Working Group Teleconference 15:00:07 Date: 15 November 2018 15:01:02 Present: Nigel, Andreas, Thierry 15:01:04 Chair: Nigel 15:01:06 scribe: nigel 15:01:14 Log: https://www.w3.org/2018/11/15-tt-irc 15:01:17 Regrets: None 15:01:55 Present+ Glenn 15:02:20 Glenn: [can only stay 50 minutes] 15:03:06 Topic: This meeting 15:05:06 atai2 has joined #tt 15:05:51 Nigel: Welcome everyone. For today we have joint f2f meeting with EBU, 15:06:00 .. TTML Profile Registry and TTWG Future Requirements. 15:06:10 .. I'd like to take a quick look at the two new repos as well. 15:06:20 .. Any other points to raise or other business? 15:07:29 Present+ Mike 15:08:06 mike has joined #tt 15:08:29 Glenn: I think we should start discussing planning for a possible September meeting, 15:08:38 .. and potential issues and conflicts schedule-wise. 15:08:43 Nigel: Okay. 15:09:00 Glenn: I remember Pierre saying last week that the TPAC 2019 schedule conflicts with 15:09:14 .. IBC so we should decide if we want to meet in Amsterdam or London instead perhaps. 15:09:25 Nigel: Okay let's cover that in f2f meetings agenda topic. 15:09:36 Topic: F2F meetings 15:10:00 Nigel: Status of the joint meeting proposal with EBU on Feb 1st. 15:10:13 s/t./t? 15:10:27 Andreas: Last week we confirmed our plan. EBU Timed Text members and TTWG members 15:10:37 .. will sit together and mainly discuss the further process and activity on the live subtitling 15:10:46 .. use case and how to use EBU-TT Live and what work can be done together. 15:11:08 .. On the day before, 31st Jan we have a TTWG meeting but we also proposed in the 15:11:21 .. EBU group if people may want to join that meeting as well with the idea in mind that 15:11:32 .. possibly some of the work we have done before in EBU could be shifted to the W3C 15:11:43 .. group so work could be done together. Nigel you may want to say more about it, but 15:11:56 .. there is the offer that a few EBU members can join the TTWG meeting as Observers. 15:12:13 .. For the Wednesday the day before we plan an informal dinner. 15:12:19 Nigel: Thank you for that summary. 15:12:23 Present+ Pierre 15:12:37 Nigel: Yes, that fits my understanding, I have made the offer that EBU Timed Text group 15:12:50 .. members can join TTWG's meeting as Observers and asked anyone who wants to do that 15:13:04 .. to let me know in advance, and also highlighted the IPR considerations that apply. 15:13:25 .. The key point I think is those dates are finalised. 15:13:40 .. Thierry, could I ask you please to put together a meeting wiki page? 15:13:45 tmichel: OK, put an action on me 15:14:42 -> https://github.com/w3c/ttwg/issues/3 Action on Thierry to create the meeting page 15:15:10 Nigel: We know the main agenda topic is future requirements and potential Charter revisions. 15:15:18 .. Any other agenda topics to raise now for that f2f meeting? 15:15:55 Thierry: Unless I can invite people from WebVTT, then no, but I doubt that. 15:16:04 Nigel: Okay, let me know if that arises. 15:16:17 Glenn: I think that inviting the VTT folks would be a good idea. 15:16:42 Nigel: I will contact David Singer and let him know this is planned and offer him the opportunity to use the time. 15:17:01 Thierry: Before that I have the action to invite David, Silvia and other to a meeting some time soon. 15:17:25 Nigel: Moving on to the September 2019 TPAC or other F2F meeting. 15:17:56 Glenn: I wanted to open a discussion. I would propose that we have a meeting in 15:18:08 .. Amsterdam if someone can fund the facility or perhaps BBC could host us in London 15:18:20 .. around the same time frame as IBC. 15:18:27 Nigel: I am sure I could host us if that's what we want to do. 15:18:36 Andreas: My question is when we should decide that. 15:18:47 .. I agree also with Nigel's point from last week that it is unfortunate about the timing 15:19:01 .. of TPAC and other events, but I see a great benefit to having TPAC and the opportunity 15:19:18 .. to meet other folks and other WGs and push stuff that if other groups meet together. 15:19:21 github-bot, end topic 15:21:03 Thierry: I need to go to TPAC1 15:21:06 a/1/! 15:21:25 Pierre: In all likelihood I will need to be at IBC for some period of time so then I have to 15:21:44 .. figure out with SMPTE meetings right on top of TPAC. At best it might mean I cannot 15:21:56 .. make it to TPAC until later in the week or not at all. Thursday and Friday I could probably 15:21:57 .. make. 15:22:18 Andreas: When do you need us to make a decision? 15:22:30 Pierre: I agree TPAC is more than TTWG and so I think it would seem silly unless the 15:22:43 .. majority of the group does not plan to go to Japan not to have a TTWG meeting. 15:22:56 .. It might help folks like me if there's a remote conference option, in case some significant 15:23:02 .. decisions need to be made there. 15:23:19 Nigel: Some links for dates: 15:23:28 -> https://show.ibc.org/exhibition IBC Exhibitino 13-17 September 2019 15:23:59 -> https://www.w3.org/wiki/TPAC/2019 TPAC wiki page - 16-20 September 2019 15:24:16 Nigel: IBC is in Amsterdam, Holland, TPAC in Fukuoka, Japan 15:24:41 Pierre: Right, if it were in the same continent it would be a lot easier but getting to Japan 15:24:47 .. from Europe takes an entire day at the very least. 15:25:09 Nigel: The easiest line in the sand is we should aim to meet 19-20 September. 15:25:22 Pierre: And if possible make remote participation available. 15:26:29 Nigel: It has always been an option in the past, I don't think it will be a problem. 15:26:41 .. I've confirmed the dates for TPAC also at https://www.w3.org/participate/meetings 15:27:03 Nigel: Any other views on this topic? 15:27:14 Topic: TTML Profile Registry 15:27:35 Nigel: I haven't seen any action on the repo this week. Is there anything to report? 15:27:50 Mike: From my perspective, no change since last week: Glenn has some broad things he 15:28:00 .. was planning to work on and I didn't see a good reason to commit anything until then. 15:28:15 Glenn: I've not been able to get to this item I'm afraid. Next week I will try to allocate 15:28:23 .. some time to this so I hope to see some progress soon. 15:28:35 .. Please make noise if I repeat that line for too many more meetings! 15:28:37 Nigel: Will do! 15:29:19 Nigel: One thing that we can all do is review the open pull requests, for example there's 15:29:21 github-bot has joined #tt 15:29:34 .. one that adds EBU specifications, which should be pretty easy to review if everyone could 15:29:36 .. take a quick look. 15:29:59 -> https://github.com/w3c/tt-profile-registry/pulls/ TTML Profile Registry pull requests 15:30:14 Topic: TTWG Future Requirements 15:30:32 Nigel: The first thing I'd like to cover here, briefly, is that as requested last week 15:30:42 .. we have two new repos, thank you for taking that action Thierry. 15:30:59 https://github.com/w3c/tt-reqs -> TTWG Future requirements repo 15:31:19 -> https://github.com/w3c/ttwg/ TTWG general group actions and planning repo 15:31:40 s|https://github.com/w3c/tt-reqs ->|-> https://github.com/w3c/tt-reqs | 15:31:59 Nigel: The requirements repo is where we can raise issues for new requirements, 15:32:11 .. and then triage them and work out which specs they will each impact. 15:32:34 .. To make it easier to track what's happening I've created a Project: 15:32:40 -> https://github.com/w3c/tt-reqs/projects/1 Requirements tracker project 15:33:44 Nigel: I've created 4 columns, for Initial Proposal, Agreed requirement, Deferred Requirement and Rejected requirements. 15:33:56 Pierre: Just a comment on those columns, I'm not sure how it's supposed to work. Those 15:34:12 .. boards are for following progress of an issue. You use milestones and potentially tags 15:34:27 .. to work out the status of each. 15:34:34 Nigel: My view is we can use them how we like! 15:35:08 -> https://github.com/w3c/strategy/projects/2#card-14248237 Strategy Funnel 15:35:16 .. I've taken inspiration from the strategy funnel. 15:35:28 .. If we want to track progress through to completion of issues that could be an additional 15:35:31 .. board, for example. 15:35:50 Pierre: I don't understand - there are already milestones, why are we inventing something else? 15:35:54 Nigel: They're not milestones 15:36:29 Pierre: There's already something for tracking, labels and milestones. 15:36:37 .. If there's no milestone on a requirement then it's unscheduled. 15:36:52 Nigel: I think this is orthogonal to that and still useful. 15:37:08 Pierre: Anyway I just think it's more bureaucracy for little gain. 15:37:26 Nigel: Okay, I've also added labels, for example to indicate if I think a requirement might 15:37:31 .. need a charter revision. 15:37:50 .. What I'd say here is let's treat this as an experiment and see if its useful. 15:38:09 Andreas: I think it is very useful to organise it in these panels but it makes sense to discuss 15:38:22 .. it now when it is first proposed so we start with something we can all agree on. 15:38:31 .. We should agree on the process. 15:38:40 .. First an initial proposal before a WG discussion. 15:38:56 .. Then we discuss it, and do what? Add it to a specific milestone. We should see it as an 15:39:10 .. agility backlog. If it is not rejected (because out of scope) then it is still in the backlog. 15:39:21 .. The easiest thing is to say if it is part of the TTML2 milestone. 15:39:31 .. A deferred requirement means we have discussed it but that it is not good for the next 15:39:42 .. milestone, but then how to make a difference to proposals not yet discussed. 15:39:55 .. Maybe easiest to have a backlog and whenever the next milestone pops up it may be 15:40:09 .. discussed again. Only things definitely out of scope get rejected, and need to be 15:40:15 .. changed and resubmitted to be considered again. 15:41:00 Nigel: Milestones are useful but obviously we have to be careful because an issue can only 15:41:11 .. be in one milestone at a time, whereas I think it can be on multiple boards and have 15:41:13 .. multiple labels. 15:41:38 .. Also it should be clear looking at any one issue what its status is without having to 15:41:42 .. see where it is on the board. 15:42:10 .. The other thing to raise is that we have github pages enabled on this repo and 15:42:17 .. Glenn has created a skeleton TTML2 requirements document. 15:42:23 -> https://w3c.github.io/tt-reqs/ttml2-2e-reqs/index.html TTML2 2nd Ed Requirements 15:42:53 Nigel: Glenn, how do you envisage this working? 15:43:04 Glenn: My view of how to use this new requirements repo for TTML2 2nd Ed is that 15:43:16 .. people file high level issues as an anchor for tracking, and then be prepared to write 15:43:28 .. out a more complete description of it using markdown and put it in the Proposed directory 15:43:40 .. under ttml2-2e-reqs and then as the group does that I will incorporate the content as 15:43:52 .. necessarily edited into the requirements document that I've prepared. That will give us 15:44:08 .. something to publish as a Note and refer to as the requirements source for the next edition. 15:44:17 .. I don't want to create too much process but it would be useful to do something like that. 15:45:23 Nigel: I suggest using Markdown and have asked Philippe if we have a W3 theme to use 15:45:35 .. for generating authentic-looking pages from the markdown. He hasn't come back to me 15:45:37 .. on that yet. 15:45:58 Pierre: Respec.js supports Markdown if someone is not comfortable with HTML. My 15:46:06 .. recommendation is to stick with text, period. 15:46:20 Glenn: I think we need to go through a distillation process to get the proposer to get down 15:46:30 .. their thoughts and I'd like a more complete description than something in an issue. 15:46:42 .. It should be owned by the proposer rather than the requirements document editor. 15:46:51 .. Sorry I have to run now! 15:47:37 Pierre: My comment was not about how people would submit requirements - we should 15:47:48 .. accept anything, even Powerpoint, but the final requirements document should be Respec. 15:47:55 Glenn: I did use Respec for this. 15:48:03 Nigel: It seems like we're in broad agreement here. 15:48:24 Nigel: One thing I would really encourage is that alongside any requirements comes some 15:48:44 .. testable statements, for example in the style of Behaviour Driven Development (BDD). 15:49:03 Nigel: That will allow us to check that any future spec changes meet the desired outcomes. 15:49:17 .. It will also allow us to create implementation tests that are meaningful. 15:49:49 .. Any other thoughts about these requirements? 15:50:03 .. Reminder that we have a deadline of 20th December for documented requirements to 15:50:10 .. discuss in our f2f, so please do submit them! 15:50:55 Topic: Ruby Reserve 15:51:15 Pierre: Someone asked me about how to deal with Ruby Reserve in CSS. Do you recall how 15:51:19 .. we said we would do it? 15:51:36 Nigel: I can't recall off the top of my head. 15:51:47 Pierre: I don't recall it being put in the CSS hopper. 15:53:18 Nigel: Looking at the CSS Ruby spec, the obvious thing to do is to use white space, but 15:53:23 .. I don't know how you'd author that. 15:53:40 Pierre: That's how IMSC.js does it, maybe that's the answer, use zero width whitespace. 15:53:44 Nigel: Maybe, it doesn't seem great. 15:54:02 Pierre: Alright, thanks. 15:54:40 Topic: TTWG Repo 15:54:55 Nigel: Coming back to my earlier point, we have the TTWG repo now, and I've created 15:55:10 .. a project for us in there, with a column for actions and another for future meetings. 15:55:26 .. Again, experimentally, I raised the agenda for today as an issue on that repo. 15:55:30 -> https://github.com/w3c/ttwg/projects/1 TTWG Project board 15:56:04 Nigel: Any initial comments on that, is it useful to have agendas raised as issues? 15:56:10 Pierre: What about adding them as documents? 15:56:40 Nigel: Yes, I could do that, I like the idea of being able to close the issue and have it 15:56:44 .. move out of the way. 15:56:59 Andreas: If it is easier for you Nigel I don't mind, I haven't had an issue that needs to be 15:57:01 .. solved I think. 15:57:59 Nigel: The only issue it fixes is it means I can correct mistakes in agendas after they have been sent out. 15:58:17 Mike: I have to run, thank you everybody. [leaves call] 15:58:30 Nigel: It also provides a hook for people to request agenda topics. 15:58:47 .. The last it allows is future planning of agenda topics more than a week in advance. 15:58:54 s/last it/last thing 15:59:07 s/last thing/last thing it 15:59:18 Nigel: So it could have some advantages. 15:59:28 .. I'll run with both for a while and see how it goes. 15:59:39 Topic: Meeting close 16:00:13 Nigel: Thank you everyone, we've completed our agenda, meet same time next week. [adjourns meeting] 16:00:16 atai2 has left #tt 16:00:17 rrsagent, make minutes 16:00:17 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2018/11/15-tt-minutes.html nigel 16:02:21 s|a/1/!|| 16:02:26 s/TPAC1/TPAC! 16:02:32 s/github-bot, end topic// 16:02:47 s/Exhibitino/Exhibition 16:17:54 rrsagent, make minutes 16:17:54 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2018/11/15-tt-minutes.html nigel 16:20:01 scribeOptions -final -noEmbedDiagnostics 16:20:03 rrsagent, make minutes 16:20:03 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2018/11/15-tt-minutes.html nigel 16:22:16 s/scribeOptions -final -noEmbedDiagnostics// 16:22:23 scribeOptions: -final -noEmbedDiagnostics 16:22:25 rrsagent, make minutes 16:22:25 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2018/11/15-tt-minutes.html nigel 16:25:45 github-bot, end meeting 16:25:45 nigel, Sorry, I don't understand that command. Try 'help'. 16:25:50 github-bot, help 16:25:50 nigel, The commands I understand are: 16:25:50 help - Send this message. 16:25:50 intro - Send a message describing what I do. 16:25:51 status - Send a message with current bot status. 16:25:51 bye - Leave the channel. (You can /invite me back.) 16:25:51 end topic - End the current topic without starting a new one. 16:25:52 reboot - Make me leave the server and exit. If properly configured, I will then update myself and return. 16:26:08 github-bot, end topc 16:26:08 nigel, Sorry, I don't understand that command. Try 'help'. 16:26:11 github-bot, end topic 17:22:23 Zakim has left #tt