IRC log of tt on 2019-07-04
Timestamps are in UTC.
- 15:00:31 [RRSAgent]
- RRSAgent has joined #tt
- 15:00:31 [RRSAgent]
- logging to https://www.w3.org/2019/07/04-tt-irc
- 15:00:33 [trackbot]
- RRSAgent, make logs public
- 15:00:33 [Zakim]
- Zakim has joined #tt
- 15:00:35 [trackbot]
- Meeting: Timed Text Working Group Teleconference
- 15:00:35 [trackbot]
- Date: 04 July 2019
- 15:00:58 [nigel]
- scribe: nigel
- 15:01:23 [nigel]
- Present: Atsushi, Gary, Glenn, Pierre, Nigel
- 15:01:27 [nigel]
- Chair: Nigel
- 15:01:41 [nigel]
- Regrets: Andreas, Cyril, Philippe
- 15:02:07 [nigel]
- Topic: This meeting
- 15:02:08 [atsushi]
- atsushi has joined #tt
- 15:03:24 [nigel]
- Nigel: Hi, first of all, welcome to Atsushi, who is our new team contact
- 15:03:55 [nigel]
- Atsushi: I joined W3C last November, and I am working for 50% on i18n and the other half on various other WGs
- 15:04:18 [nigel]
- .. I'm still working for a bunch of other things, but hope I can work here efficiently. I'm learning about this WG and
- 15:04:23 [nigel]
- .. its specifications.
- 15:05:20 [nigel]
- Nigel: [introduces Gary, Glenn and Pierre as well as himself]
- 15:05:53 [nigel]
- .. If you want time to run through things I am available for that Atsushi.
- 15:06:07 [nigel]
- Atsushi: I'm in listening mode today, I've had an introduction from Philippe.
- 15:06:53 [nigel]
- Nigel: Agenda for today: some WebVTT, TTML2 issues. We won't cover Charter status because Philippe has sent his
- 15:07:06 [nigel]
- .. regrets. Is there any other business or points to make sure we cover?
- 15:07:17 [nigel]
- group: [no other business]
- 15:07:45 [nigel]
- Topic: WebVTT
- 15:08:12 [nigel]
- Gary: I posted two issues on the agenda, we only need to talk about one.
- 15:08:22 [nigel]
- .. Yesterday I opened up issues from the currently failing tests so they don't get forgotten.
- 15:08:46 [nigel]
- .. One of the tests is failing because when parsing the region lines value the spec says interpret it as an integer.
- 15:08:58 [nigel]
- .. Safari and Firefox interpret it differently. I'm not sure it is easy to test.
- 15:09:07 [nigel]
- .. Other than this I think the current at risk proposal is good to go.
- 15:09:26 [nigel]
- Topic: [IR] parsing: region lines webvtt#467
- 15:09:32 [nigel]
- github: https://github.com/w3c/webvtt/issues/467
- 15:09:57 [nigel]
- Gary: When parsing the WebVTT file with region lines being some very large value or very small value, that is
- 15:10:16 [nigel]
- .. outside of the int range, Safari I think returns max integer but Firefox returns a zero.
- 15:10:32 [nigel]
- .. I think that is technically correct based on reading the spec, because it says "interpret as an integer".
- 15:10:36 [nigel]
- Nigel: Which is correct?
- 15:10:49 [nigel]
- Gary: I think both of them are. I don't think one is necessarily more correct.
- 15:10:54 [nigel]
- .. There's nothing beyond "interpret".
- 15:11:01 [nigel]
- Nigel: Is that not an interop problem?
- 15:11:19 [nigel]
- Gary: Maybe, and that's why I thought this is worth talking about, because I'm not sure.
- 15:11:46 [nigel]
- Nigel: Any immediate views on this? I don't have an answer.
- 15:12:02 [nigel]
- Gary: The HTML spec for parsing floating points says if too large or small to use the closest available number to it.
- 15:12:26 [nigel]
- .. To me that seems like the correct decision, but at the same time, basically I guess the question to answer now is
- 15:12:42 [nigel]
- .. should this hold up the current at risk CR or should we just get that out and then figure out what to do with this,
- 15:12:48 [nigel]
- .. alongside everything else.
- 15:13:04 [nigel]
- Nigel: It doesn't help with exiting CR because there's a failing test.
- 15:13:07 [nigel]
- Gary: Yes
- 15:13:52 [nigel]
- Nigel: It looks like Firefox would need to change if your instinct is right. Is it worth talking to anyone at Mozilla?
- 15:14:00 [nigel]
- Gary: Yes I can try or ask Philippe to find someone.
- 15:14:12 [nigel]
- Nigel: Sounds like a good way forward.
- 15:15:12 [nigel]
- Atsushi: I have nothing for today, but I also work for i18n WG and would like to check with them.
- 15:16:19 [nigel]
- SUMMARY: Probable proposal will be to use closest value algorithm, needs implementor input
- 15:16:42 [pal]
- pal has joined #tt
- 15:18:02 [nigel]
- Topic: Emphasize null style semantics in context of ruby container spans (#1100). ttml2#1101
- 15:18:09 [nigel]
- github: https://github.com/w3c/ttml2/pull/1101
- 15:20:42 [nigel]
- Nigel: Summary so far is that the existing pull request is okay in most respects but Pierre asks for similar wording
- 15:21:01 [nigel]
- .. to be added to 4 further style attributes, and it seems Glenn is not happy to do so. Let's iterate through them.
- 15:21:07 [nigel]
- .. First up is tts:direction
- 15:21:19 [nigel]
- s/direction/unicodeBidi
- 15:21:42 [nigel]
- Nigel: The discussion says it can have an effect - shall we cross it off the list?
- 15:21:59 [nigel]
- Pierre: No, there's an outstanding question. unicodeBidi has an effect on the child spans of an element.
- 15:22:12 [nigel]
- .. I gave two examples where I think the rendering is different depending on the value of the unicodeBidi property.
- 15:22:27 [nigel]
- .. But when the span is a ruby container, the two child spans, like a text container and a base container are rendered
- 15:22:45 [nigel]
- .. separately and their content should not ever be reordered by the unicode bidi algorithm because they're on different lines
- 15:23:06 [nigel]
- .. so I'm fairly certain that the computed value of unicodeBidi cannot have an effect on a ruby container. The two
- 15:23:17 [nigel]
- .. children, the base container and the text container are rendered entirely separately.
- 15:23:42 [nigel]
- Glenn: That discussion ignores the fact that there are 3 different containers we are talking about, the top level,
- 15:23:59 [nigel]
- .. the base and the text. It clearly applies to the base and text containers because they can contain multiple bases and texts.
- 15:24:18 [nigel]
- .. In edge case scenarios potentially the top level container arguably does not have a semantic application.
- 15:24:22 [nigel]
- Pierre: I don't agree with that.
- 15:24:38 [nigel]
- Glenn: The other point is that even if the top level container does not have that effect normally, if you are actually
- 15:24:53 [nigel]
- .. rendering two separate inline boxes for the ruby text, that argument ignores the fact that the delimiter function and
- 15:25:08 [nigel]
- .. the fallback functions make use of inline ruby in which one does have a potential bidirectional semantic. In that case
- 15:25:31 [nigel]
- .. it does apply. The same thing is true for wrapOption and direction. All three of those style attributes have cases
- 15:25:37 [nigel]
- .. where they could have a semantic application.
- 15:25:53 [nigel]
- .. In any case I thought we had a compromise from a few weeks ago to go ahead with the 15 styles where I did add the
- 15:26:11 [nigel]
- .. note even though I was extremely unhappy to do so. Now in the last couple of weeks Pierre has come back and asked
- 15:26:18 [nigel]
- .. for more and still seems to ask for more with color.
- 15:27:54 [nigel]
- .. At this point I will not accept any new notes in any other style attributes.
- 15:28:16 [nigel]
- Nigel: Entrenching your position is really unhelpful for getting to a resolution. We can discuss the technical merits
- 15:29:30 [nigel]
- Pierre: If there are multiple base containers and text containers within a ruby container I don't think unicodeBidi should
- 15:29:44 [nigel]
- .. apply across the text containers because each is only associated with one base container.
- 15:30:03 [nigel]
- Glenn: There is a base container and a base ruby.
- 15:30:32 [nigel]
- Pierre: Sorry, if there are two base containers and they each have a different bidi position before and after then it
- 15:30:36 [nigel]
- .. doesn't apply, right?
- 15:30:53 [nigel]
- Glenn: There are technical scenarios where based on context you could come up with a theory that there isn't anything
- 15:31:10 [nigel]
- .. to apply it to, but does that require a note to the reader? I strongly disagree with that, and that's been my contention
- 15:31:24 [nigel]
- .. from the beginning, that none of these notes is making any different whatsoever.
- 15:32:19 [nigel]
- .. This is a note about optimisation. I'm not going to move on this. If you want to add more I prefer going nowhere.
- 15:35:20 [nigel]
- Nigel: I've asked once, please don't restate or entrench position, let's have a technical basis for the decisions we make.
- 15:35:36 [nigel]
- .. Pierre, you don't seem to have responded to the point about there being no delimiter.
- 15:35:44 [nigel]
- Pierre: It's complicated [shares screen]
- 15:36:04 [nigel]
- -> https://www.w3.org/TR/ttml2/#style-attribute-ruby ruby attribtue
- 15:36:34 [nigel]
- Pierre: The note shows the nesting model
- 15:36:41 [nigel]
- Glenn: The fallback scenario is well defined.
- 15:36:54 [nigel]
- Pierre: You should never reorder across ruby text and base ever though.
- 15:37:01 [nigel]
- Glenn: Users may want to.
- 15:37:26 [nigel]
- .. The purpose of the style property unicodeBidi and direction is to provide an alternate way to override the unicode characters
- 15:37:36 [nigel]
- .. for bidi. There's nothing to stop users using those unicode characters.
- 15:37:52 [nigel]
- .. We have to make sure that both representations can translate to each other for example TTPE.
- 15:38:03 [nigel]
- Pierre: Unicode reordering does not apply across divs, right?
- 15:38:14 [nigel]
- Glenn: It does apply divs, yes, and across boundaries.
- 15:38:31 [nigel]
- .. I don't know a good user case for it. You can do it in CSS, and in plain text characters you can do it using explicit bidi controls.
- 15:38:48 [nigel]
- Pierre: Today unicodeBidi does not apply to div, so how can a property apply across divs but not to divs.
- 15:39:06 [nigel]
- Glenn: I agree that's not a good one to talk about. Let's say p.
- 15:39:16 [nigel]
- .. You're right about divs. But we don't say they don't apply to div
- 15:39:22 [nigel]
- Pierre: unicodeBidi does not apply to div
- 15:39:28 [nigel]
- Glenn: I'm sorry I was wrong, you're correct.
- 15:39:46 [nigel]
- .. Reminder about the "presentation related element" term that is used in one of the algorithms.
- 15:40:04 [nigel]
- .. We defined it as something that affects the presentation of content, but we did not define an algorithm for how to
- 15:40:13 [nigel]
- .. determine whether an element can affect the presentation of content.
- 15:40:30 [nigel]
- .. When we adopted this language we discussed the issue of how to determine it and we agreed that unless
- 15:40:44 [nigel]
- .. an implementation can prove it does not affect presentation then it should assume it does.
- 15:40:56 [nigel]
- .. We left it to the implementations to optimise what to prune.
- 15:41:16 [nigel]
- .. You've basically brought this back into play, to come up with an algorithm to come up with corner cases.
- 15:41:21 [nigel]
- Pierre: It's not an optimisation.
- 15:41:34 [nigel]
- Glenn: It is only an optimisation. For me we should only be talking about elements.
- 15:41:51 [nigel]
- .. This discussion is the same as the one we had for presentation related element content.
- 15:42:09 [nigel]
- .. I don't understand why you're spending so much time on this trivial issue that is an optimisation. I plan to ignore it,
- 15:42:12 [nigel]
- .. it doesn't even matter.
- 15:42:33 [nigel]
- Pierre: It does, we're talking about unicodeBidi applying across elements, so it could lead to different results so it does matter for interop.
- 15:42:37 [nigel]
- .. This is complex stuff.
- 15:42:57 [nigel]
- Glenn: I haven't seen any users bring forward non-interoperable content. Do you have any bug reports?
- 15:43:15 [nigel]
- Pierre: Yes that's exactly what led to the issue in the first place, with respect to underline on a ruby container span.
- 15:43:26 [nigel]
- Glenn: That was a real bug in the spec we have fixed already.
- 15:43:40 [nigel]
- Pierre: This is actually because of a bug report on what applies to a ruby container span.
- 15:43:50 [nigel]
- .. This is opened the door to what does apply to ruby container spans.
- 15:44:03 [nigel]
- Glenn: I don't think we should be going down this road of premature optimisation.
- 15:44:22 [nigel]
- Pierre: It's interoperability. The bug is that the spec was unclear and we are clarifying it for better interop.
- 15:44:43 [nigel]
- Glenn: The only real bug was about white space that was potentially considered significant when xml:space=preserve is used.
- 15:44:50 [nigel]
- Pierre: No that was not the only bug.
- 15:46:18 [nigel]
- Nigel: We're trying to work out if the spec is clear about the layout of ruby with unicodeBidi.
- 15:46:31 [nigel]
- Pierre: Specifically the container : base text example.
- 15:49:13 [nigel]
- Nigel: I'm concerned here about if there is an ambiguity that means that two implementations could both seem to be
- 15:49:44 [nigel]
- .. conformant to the spec but render text in a different order, changing the meaning, in which case we need to clarify it.
- 15:49:57 [nigel]
- Glenn: I'm concerned about overspecifying, I think we may get it wrong.
- 15:50:53 [nigel]
- Nigel: Can we merge what we have and open a new issue about this ruby layout complexity?
- 15:51:07 [nigel]
- Pierre: color is really simple.
- 15:51:50 [nigel]
- .. Coming back on the point of a compromise that I've reopened, I raised the point about the other attributes on the original review.
- 15:52:21 [nigel]
- Glenn: I'm at the take it or leave it stage.
- 15:52:32 [nigel]
- Pierre: I'm happy to take over editing the pull request and come up with one we can vote on.
- 15:52:52 [nigel]
- Glenn: I'm going to object to it so it will be put on hold. I already objected to your pull request.
- 15:53:10 [nigel]
- .. I think you've overstepped your prerogative.
- 15:53:15 [nigel]
- Pierre: I'm a member of this group.
- 15:53:24 [nigel]
- Nigel: I'm seeing no overstepping.
- 15:53:34 [nigel]
- Pierre: I'm raising this for interop reasons.
- 15:53:51 [nigel]
- Glenn: If we go to the CSS WG and ask them for their CSS ruby model and they have a firm answer to it I am willing to
- 15:54:05 [nigel]
- .. look at it again. I'm not prepared to make statements we don't have agreement for.
- 15:54:43 [nigel]
- Pierre: What about color? It's the same as textDecoration.
- 15:54:49 [nigel]
- Glenn: Why didn't you raise it in the first place?
- 15:55:37 [nigel]
- Pierre: I had suggested some elements and you took the liberty not to take some into account and I'm bringing them up again.
- 15:55:44 [nigel]
- .. I'm trying to do this based on technical reason.
- 15:56:31 [nigel]
- Nigel: Does the note apply to tts:color?
- 15:56:41 [nigel]
- Glenn: In the same way as it applies to any empty span.
- 15:56:44 [nigel]
- Nigel: So it does apply.
- 15:56:58 [nigel]
- Glenn: The context means some attributes do not apply.
- 15:59:51 [nigel]
- Nigel: I have a proposal: let's add color to this PR, merge it, and open a new issue for wrapOption, unicodeBidi and direction, and go
- 16:00:05 [nigel]
- .. to CSS WG and i18n as Glenn suggested.
- 16:00:42 [nigel]
- Glenn: Alternative proposal: accept these two PRs as they stand. Open a new issue for color and view that on its own merit,
- 16:00:56 [nigel]
- .. and it there's some technical argumentation for the other three, then open new issues for those separately.
- 16:01:08 [nigel]
- .. So far I've not seen any argument that says what we have right now is unacceptable.
- 16:03:04 [nigel]
- Nigel: Unless you think there's a technical argument against adding the note to color then we should include it.
- 16:04:06 [nigel]
- Pierre: I'm happy to do that editorial work.
- 16:04:13 [nigel]
- Nigel: Ok please go ahead on the same PR
- 16:04:29 [nigel]
- Glenn: I will put an objection on that pull request if you do that
- 16:09:48 [nigel]
- Nigel: Okay if you want to make an objection, make it well formed with a rationale.
- 16:09:52 [nigel]
- Glenn: It's a process objection
- 16:10:21 [nigel]
- Nigel: I don't want to spend another hour discussing this. The unicodeBidi issue needs to be raised separately and
- 16:10:39 [nigel]
- .. warrants further discussion but we've spent long enough on this that I think we're approaching the point where I will
- 16:10:53 [nigel]
- .. need to make a call as Chair and let us move on with our lives.
- 16:10:56 [nigel]
- Topic: Meeting close
- 16:11:12 [atsushi]
- rrsagent, please publish minutes
- 16:11:12 [RRSAgent]
- I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2019/07/04-tt-minutes.html atsushi
- 16:11:19 [nigel]
- Nigel: Thanks all for attending, especially those in the US on 4th July. [adjourns meeting]
- 16:11:23 [nigel]
- rrsagent, make minutes
- 16:11:23 [RRSAgent]
- I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2019/07/04-tt-minutes.html nigel
- 16:13:38 [atsushi]
- nigel, thank you on that. I try to catch up items shortly
- 16:29:16 [nigel]
- scribeOptions: -final -noEmbedDiagnostics
- 16:29:20 [nigel]
- rrsagent, make minutes v2
- 16:29:20 [RRSAgent]
- I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2019/07/04-tt-minutes.html nigel