See also: IRC log
<cyril> scribe: Cyril
nigel: I've put the charter but
not sure there is anything to discuss
... WebVTT IR is important of course
... 2 issues marked for Agenda on TTML2
... and one issue on the profile registry
... I've just added an AOB about an Accessibility Event in
June, it's a notification
... anything AOB missing?
nigel: the status is that we'll
ask to be sent for AC review end of next week
... by that point we should have explainers
thierry: was it presented to
w3m?
... before going to AC it should be validate by w3m
nigel: the issues was apply the
correct list of chairs, something about webvtt
... it's my expectation that it will need some validation
first
... any comment on the current draft charter
atai2: regarding the
explainers?
... I haven't been at the meeting where explainers were
discussed
... I updated the requirements for 360 subs
... my conclusion is that I don't expect that we'll publish
something this year
... discussions are needed to scope this area and write
requirements
... I will not be able to write explainers soon
nigel: as the leader of this activity, if you say we'll need to defer this, I'm fine
atai2: the charter is not only covering 2019, up to 2021
nigel: yes but the requirements agreed were for this year
atai2: I just wanted to know if it is ok to delay the explainer until we have better scope
nigel: we have received an
incoming liaison from MPEG
... if we defer will there be an impact on these industry
timelines
... will we miss the 'right' time to publish something in
TTML?
atai2: I don't think we'll be able to deliver something final for this activity in 2019
plh: I forwarded an email on
monday
... and I will forward another one
glenn: I reviewed the document
this morning
... and it's relevant
... for timed text
nigel: thanks for looking at that
glenn: it basically provides an out of band mechanism for associating a timed text region with a 360 region
atai2: MPEG's document is member confidential
plh: there are 2 documents: the
PDF liaison
... and the real meat is the 2 technical documents
referenced
... and they are ISO confidential
... as long as we don't copy these documents here we're
fine
nigel: I agree minutes are fine
cyril: discussing documents, minuting this discussion, is fine
nigel: andreas do you think it's still best to defer that piece of work, in this group, until 2020
atai2: we should discuss MPEG's
document in the group and see what our input can be and see
from there
... there is not only ISO/MPEG but the Web Community
Group
... I still would like to postpone it
... but I'm also ok to postpone the decision to postpone
... it does not make sense for me right now to produce an
explainer
glenn: presumably, this work will
be published in a separate module
... so it can have it's own timeline
... and the charter is not explicit about it
... putting end of 2019 as a hard date of all possible
rec-track documents is probably not a good idea
... we should focus on TTML2 2nd edition and TTML3
... and the modules that we do finish by the end of the
year
ack
nigel: I sent a little summary of
explainers to people involved
... anything else on the charter?
... for philippe, at the end of next it will be taken by staff
for management review
plh: yes, that will take us 3 to
4 weeks
... it may take less but I cannot guarantee that
... will need horizontal review ...
... I can even circulate it asap if you like to
... it doesn''t have to be 100% final
nigel: you can do that
... I think the remaining issues are PLH to address
nigel: what's the status?
gkatsev: unfortunately, not much
time
... we're missing 2 tests: vertical and text combine
... adding should be easy and I should have some time
... also working with Eric to fix display of vertical cues in
Safari so that can pass
... text combine, it seems that no browsers support it
yet
... not sure what to do about that
<plh> https://github.com/w3c/webvtt/issues
<nigel> plh
plh: there are still some issues
not classified in the WebVTT repo
... it would be nice if they are to remain open until the next
version
... we should make the decision as a WG to move the spec to
PR
... either starting the CfC next week or the week after
... we published the updated CR on April 4th
<nigel> nigel
plh: and unless someone has an issue, we should move ahead
nigel: for me, that is dependent
on the IR being ready
... until we have that, we cannot have the CfC
plh: when can we have the IR ready
gkatsev: I already have the
spreadsheet
... what would be necessary?
nigel: we need to have good
understanding that the test set is complete
... and we create some document describing the set
plh: if we have the spreadsheeet ...
nigel: it might be enough
gkatsev: I can model WebVTT's IR based on the spreadsheet to look like IMSC's IR
<nigel> IMSC 1 IR
plh: that page needs to contain
information that cannot go in the spreadsheet
... the criteria is 2 implementations of every feature
... but this is open to interpretation, depending on whether
the test is corner case or not
... the tests may not represents an entire feature, if it
fails, it may be ok if it is a corner case
gkatsev: I can think of one,
right now, font-variant
... CSS as a feature is validated but some CSS properties,
white listed, are not supported
nigel: we should actually test
that non white listed properties are ignored
... there is a must for that
... and it's important
... we need just one example of a property that is not white
listed and see that it is ignored
plh: I agree
gkatsev: font-variant is white listed as part of the font shorthand
plh: is the test testing as part
of the shorthand?
... one way to solve this is to check with the CSS WG the
status of this
... and see if Chrome considers this as a bug
... or if relying on it is dangerous
... and in the latter case, putting a note in the spec about
it
... or if another approach is needed
... gary if you identify other such properties
... let me know
... I can take the action to check with CSS about these
properties
gkatsev: I'll take a look at them, and they might be implemented as vendor-prefixed
plh: if it goes in even more details, like units, we might have to go into more details too
nigel: so there is still some
work to do to provide the IR, before we can issue the CfC
... anything else?
plh: for the purpose of the
charter, I'd like to understand what the group thinks
... it looks like we could publish CR
... and in that case it should be in the charter
... if you are not ok with that, you should speak about it
nigel: for charter, we need to have adequate participation, chair and strategy review
plh: we need to know who is going
to maintain?
... and if part of the charter, it needs to be TTWG?
pal: the only question mark in
the charter was chairing that
... gary has been active, so we have editing resources
... but the chairing part is not clear
plh: I don't think the chairing part is going to be difficult
pal: the charter has a TBD
plh: and I have an action on
that
... either I convince Nigel or I need to convince someone
else
gkatsev: I want to see this through so I might step up if needed
plh: reach out to me directly if you want to discuss this
nigel: 2 issues
<nigel> github: https://github.com/w3c/ttml2/issues/1034
glenn: I reviewd that and the suggested approach looks reasonable to me and I will prepare a PR
nigel: thank you, done, then
<nigel> github: https://github.com/w3c/ttml2/issues/1043
glenn: on this one I posted a PR and haven't got a review
pal: I reviewed it and proposed an alternative PR
glenn: I'll take a look at that
pal: my main question is really:
does that match your understanding?
... my alternate PR want to be extremely explicit to see if we
agree
glenn: you want to address the
possible ambiguity of white space preserve
... in anonymous text spans as children of these
containers
... I hate dealing with dueling PR
pal: you raised an interesting
point
... another dimension of the issue is XML space
... and applicability, this is not a style property
... my alternative PR does not address that, so maybe we need
to merge both PR
nigel: on the point of XML space preserve, a naive interpretation means that there is character content
glenn: basically, we don't want
it to be
... it was never the intention that the text content of
containers would be treated as text
...glenn: so I tweaked that in my PR
... another thing to keep in mind is that text nodes in
containers will be wrapped in anonymous span, so there is no
more character content directly in the container
pal: I had not considered that
when I filed the ticket
... maybe the 2 PRs are complementary
... nigel, what's your take on the white space issue?
nigel: glenn's PR says that it
ignores it
... my comment is broader, it's about any text, not white
space
glenn: there are already rules
that rule out non-whitespace character
... are you asking about what happens when the content is
invalid?
nigel: yes
glenn: in many cases, we don't
specify what happens in case of error
... if you are a validating processor, you could reject
nigel: I can see why you have the explicit exception about linear white space
glenn: at that time I had not
realized the ambiguity about preserve
... I want to reiterate
... since there are no character content that can appear as a
child of container
... my original statement was that we don't need to say
anything
... that's when he introduced the ambiguity about white
space
... and since that is addressed, I think we don't need to say
anything about properties that apply to character content
... that's why I don't think we need to put special case in
each property for this
nigel: but they do apply for inheritance
glenn: right
... I pointed that out in the note
pal: but inheritance is not application
glenn: right, application means semantic application
pal: like font-size does not
apply to region
... my PR is to make it more explicit
... I do have a question about audio properties
glenn: I do not like the approach of putting special case language in each property
pal: you should consider the
amount of change
... there's already special cases
glenn: having repetition of the same statement in many properties is not a good thing
summary: we'll continue reviewing the PR offline to reach consensus
glenn: we agreed in prior
meetings to go ahead and publish
... I need directions on how to do that
nigel: it's published
glenn: excellent
<inserted> scribe: nigel
Nigel: I just wanted to mention
for information that I've been invited to speak about W3C
accessibility stuff at an ITU
... event in Geneva on June 7, and plan to attend and do that.
There's a link to the event in the agenda - if you want
to
... discuss this any more please get in touch with me
offline.
Nigel: Thanks all, we didn't have
time to discuss the TTML Profile Registry issue so defer that
until next week.
... I'll look at the load for next week and decide 1 or 2
hours, but please let me know if you have additional topics by
Tuesday so I can schedule it. [adjourns meeting]