16:01:09 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #tt
16:01:09 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2019/11/07-tt-irc
16:01:11 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs public
16:01:11 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #tt
16:01:13 <trackbot> Meeting: Timed Text Working Group Teleconference
16:01:13 <trackbot> Date: 07 November 2019
16:02:29 <nigel> Log: https://www.w3.org/2019/11/07-tt-irc
16:03:00 <nigel> Agenda: https://github.com/w3c/ttwg/issues/77
16:03:20 <nigel> Present: Cyril, Gary, Glenn, Pierre, Nigel
16:03:23 <nigel> Chair: Nigel, Gary
16:03:27 <nigel> Regrets: Atsushi
16:03:51 <nigel> scribe: nigel
16:03:58 <nigel> Topic: This meeting
16:04:09 <nigel> nigel has changed the topic to: TTWG weekly webex. Today 1500 UTC. Agenda for 2019-11-07: https://github.com/w3c/ttwg/issues/77
16:04:57 <nigel> Nigel: Hi everyone, today we have 3 TTML2 issues/pull requests to discuss.
16:05:00 <nigel> .. Any other business?
16:05:47 <nigel> group: [no other business]
16:05:57 <nigel> Nigel: I see Glenn isn't on audio - not sure if there's a problem there Glenn?
16:06:51 <nigel> .. I see Glenn just added a comment to the agenda asking to discuss #1128 first.
16:07:41 <nigel> Topic: Text Combine example is incorrect/misleading. ttml2#1128
16:07:46 <nigel> github: https://github.com/w3c/ttml2/issues/1128
16:08:25 <atsushi> atsushi has joined #tt
16:08:30 <nigel> Nigel: Looks like there's a collective desire for the image in the example and the text to match each other and show something useful?
16:08:47 <nigel> Cyril: Yes. I don't mind the text being vague, but at the moment it is wrong because it isn't showing what is happening at all.
16:08:52 <nigel> Glenn: I disagree with that.
16:09:09 <nigel> Cyril: It only talks about half-width variants but none are selected in the example.
16:10:12 <nigel> Glenn: It does have them.
16:10:28 <nigel> .. The AB34 on the right side are half width variants.
16:10:40 <nigel> Cyril: Unless the image has changed they are quarter width, right?
16:11:13 <nigel> Nigel: The "AB34" look like they're in one EM square width and heightwise.
16:11:23 <nigel> Cyril: Yes, so they're not half width variants but quarter width.
16:12:15 <nigel> Glenn: [thinks] Maybe we should remove the term "half width" entirely.
16:12:19 <nigel> Cyril: Yes, that's one option.
16:12:34 <nigel> Glenn: That I think is problematic. I could go back and remove that.
16:12:39 <nigel> Cyril: Great, that's all I'm asking.
16:12:48 <nigel> Glenn: Would you be ok with that Pierre?
16:12:59 <nigel> Pierre: I'm happy with whatever Cyril is happy with!
16:13:26 <nigel> SUMMARY: @skynavga to remove reference to "half width" for this example.
16:14:00 <nigel> Topic: Clarify undefined semantics for text combine in ruby text (#978). ttml2#1171
16:14:05 <nigel> github: https://github.com/w3c/ttml2/pull/1171
16:14:23 <nigel> Glenn: There appears to be a difference of opinion between myself and Pierre.
16:14:48 <nigel> .. The intent of this was basically to say that in the context of ruby text that text combination has no semantics defined,
16:15:02 <nigel> .. so I had proposed a note that says this version of TTML does not define any semantics for text combine in the context
16:15:39 <nigel> .. of ruby text content and added that presentation processors may ignore text combine (treat as None) in the context
16:16:01 <nigel> .. of ruby text. Pierre doesn't seem to like the second part but I think it's a logical consequence of the first sentence.
16:16:19 <nigel> Pierre: I'm going to repeat myself, but the second sentence specifies a permission and therefore a semantic so it has
16:16:21 <nigel> .. to be removed.
16:16:27 <nigel> Glenn: It is in a note so is not normative.
16:16:33 <nigel> Pierre: Equally it can be removed then.
16:16:46 <nigel> Cyril: Is it the use of "may" that creates confusion?
16:16:59 <nigel> Pierre: Yes, absolutely. I think it is true that there are no semantics, so there are none, period.
16:17:08 <nigel> Glenn: We use "may" in notes.
16:17:21 <nigel> Pierre: If there is no semantic there should be no suggestion one way or another.
16:17:35 <nigel> Cyril: What is the intent, to say "don't use them together because you won't get interop"?
16:17:52 <nigel> .. Or that some implementations may do it right and others may not but if you are using conformant implementations
16:17:56 <nigel> .. then you can still use it.
16:18:11 <nigel> Glenn: Is it the problem that it looks like conformance language.
16:18:42 <nigel> Pierre: That is not my problem, although it is throughout TTML2, I've said before.
16:20:34 <nigel> Nigel: Could we water down the second sentence to say "For example, ... could ignore"?
16:20:41 <nigel> Pierre: And add a contrary example too.
16:20:47 <nigel> Glenn: either would work for me.
16:20:53 <nigel> Cyril: Me too, it's okay.
16:21:05 <nigel> Glenn: We have "for example" elsewhere in notes.
16:21:18 <nigel> Cyril: That means implementers could expect to encounter content with this.
16:21:26 <nigel> Glenn: I wouldn't say should expect but it is possible.
16:21:33 <nigel> Cyril: Is there a defined behaviour?
16:21:53 <nigel> Glenn: This is there to put authors on notice that they should not expect a particular behaviour.
16:22:02 <nigel> Cyril: So we should say do not use it.
16:22:07 <nigel> Glenn: That's going too far.
16:22:24 <nigel> Pierre: I agree with Cyril, the intent is to warn authors not to use it because the implementation is undefined.
16:22:36 <nigel> Glenn: We cannot say "should not be used" in a note - we don't do it in a note.
16:22:45 <nigel> .. In many cases we give fair warning to readers that it is inadvisable.
16:22:51 <nigel> .. This is how we do it.
16:23:02 <nigel> Pierre: Here it is more than that, something could happen, it might not be ignore.
16:23:48 <nigel> Nigel: We're agreeing about the reality of what is specified, just discussing what the best advice is to readers.
16:23:58 <nigel> Cyril: Are we agreed to advise people not to use?
16:24:54 <nigel> .. If we agree that because this feature is not specified people should not rely on it or use it because they might get
16:25:01 <nigel> .. any behaviour? If so then we can work on the text.
16:25:18 <nigel> Glenn: Generally we don't say in TTML that authors should use or not use something. That's a profile question.
16:25:32 <nigel> Cyril: Do you agree on the intent here, that "unspecified behaviour" means anything could happen?
16:25:42 <nigel> Glenn: I agree, we don't want users to use something that is undefined.
16:25:59 <nigel> Cyril: I agree with Pierre that if we hint that it will be ignored people might rely on that.
16:26:15 <nigel> .. We could change the note to say in addition that other processors might do something completely wrong.
16:26:34 <nigel> Glenn: Let me see if I can come up with some language like an advisory that doesn't say "should not" but takes the
16:26:48 <nigel> .. form of a recommendation to authors not to use it and see how people like that. How's that sound?
16:27:04 <nigel> Pierre: Sounds good, thank you for considering my comment.
16:27:09 <nigel> Glenn: Sure.
16:27:32 <nigel> SUMMARY: @skynavga to propose alternate wording advising non-use of textCombine in the context of ruby
16:28:07 <nigel> Topic: Improve anonymous span prose, generalize ordered rule convention (#1139). ttml2#1179
16:28:14 <nigel> github: https://github.com/w3c/ttml2/pull/1179
16:28:46 <nigel> Glenn: Before we start this, just to point out that this and the next issue today are marked for 3rd Ed so if we keep
16:28:53 <nigel> .. them there then we don't have to deal with them right now.
16:29:14 <nigel> Nigel: Thank you, that's useful. If we have agreement now we can implement it, otherwise we don't need to stress too
16:29:16 <nigel> .. much about it.
16:29:49 <nigel> Glenn: To summarise the situation, part of this was about prose to do with anonymous span concerning ordering
16:29:58 <nigel> .. that was possibly vague and we need to be clear about ordering of rules.
16:30:10 <nigel> .. There are two ways to do this. One is to add text directly about ordering like we have in some places,
16:30:26 <nigel> .. or prescribe a general rule about ordered lists and I chose to take the latter route because I realise that everywhere
16:30:54 <nigel> .. we have ordered lists in the text, and where the underlying XML document uses the `<olist>` syntax and it was
16:31:13 <nigel> .. used to define procedural steps it was always intended to be ordered sequentially and we could apply generic text.
16:31:32 <nigel> .. After analysing all the document I found that everywhere that the ordered lists were used for procedures it was
16:31:45 <nigel> .. always intended to be sequential, but that in a number of places where it was enumerating cases that were not
16:32:05 <nigel> .. procedures or steps that no order was implied, i.e. an unordered list of bullets could be used but I had used olist
16:32:24 <nigel> .. in order to allow referring to specific cases as opposed to steps. For example in the list of criteria under
16:32:43 <nigel> .. processor or document conformance we have items that are listed 1 through 3 and so forth that could have been
16:32:57 <nigel> .. bulletted items but then I would have no way to refer to each criterion as a numbered item.
16:33:14 <nigel> .. My proposal was to have a rule that said wherever ordered lists appear in procedures as ordered steps then they
16:33:30 <nigel> .. are always in the indicated order and we can take out any text in the inline prose that talks about it being ordered
16:33:46 <nigel> .. and use the general rule instead. But Nigel I think you have a slightly different opinion that you want it to be defined
16:33:49 <nigel> .. inline instead.
16:37:04 <nigel> Nigel: Yes, I want to keep the current approach so as to avoid promoting use of unordered lists that lead to a list
16:37:27 <nigel> .. of steps that we cannot then reference. It's useful to know that there's already a case there.
16:37:48 <nigel> Pierre: My preference is to make fewer changes and just add the "this is an ordered list" text to the one specific list
16:38:00 <nigel> .. that gave rise to the issue and do nothing else. If that's not acceptable then defer this.
16:38:25 <nigel> Glenn: I was just counting the number of places where there is an ordered list missing the language of ordered steps,
16:38:48 <nigel> .. 31, and the number that could be unordered lists, 10. There's a case that the default rule could apply to ordered
16:39:07 <nigel> .. lists being ordered always, numerically. One option would be to change everything to unordered lists that are criteria
16:39:23 <nigel> .. or cases which would remove the ability to refer to specific cases or criteria unless we name them, which is somewhat
16:39:25 <nigel> .. of a negative.
16:39:30 <nigel> Nigel: It's a blocker for me.
16:39:50 <nigel> Glenn: Maybe the best thing is to do as Pierre suggests, to handle this one case specifically by adding the language
16:39:59 <nigel> .. about "ordered" and move this general issue into 3rd Edition.
16:40:07 <nigel> .. Then we can deal with that later.
16:40:25 <nigel> Cyril: I would like this last proposal, we should not do major changes at this stage. We should not change parts that
16:40:34 <nigel> .. are not broken because we think it would be better.
16:40:46 <nigel> Glenn: I'm fine with that, it would deal with the immediate issue about span processing.
16:40:49 <nigel> Nigel: Works for me.
16:41:11 <nigel> Glenn: OK I will create a new issue regarding the ordering and point at this and create a new PR dealing with just the
16:41:13 <nigel> .. original issue. OK?
16:41:17 <nigel> Nigel: Any objections?
16:41:20 <nigel> group: [no]
16:41:38 <nigel> Glenn: And I'll deal with the original issue in 2nd Ed CR.
16:42:17 <nigel> SUMMARY: @skynavga to add ordering language to deal with original scope of issue, and raise new issue for general ordering of steps, targeted at 3rd Ed.
16:42:50 <nigel> Topic: Clarify escape in literal convention (#987). ttml2#1173
16:42:56 <nigel> github: https://github.com/w3c/ttml2/pull/1173
16:43:50 <nigel> Nigel: We seem to be trying to escape backslashes here without defining an escape mechanism.
16:43:55 <nigel> .. Perhaps we don't need to do anything here?
16:44:54 <nigel> Glenn: In TTML2 we introduced something absent from TTML1. In `<quoted-string>` in TTML2 we introduce an
16:44:59 <nigel> .. escaping mechanism.
16:45:22 <nigel> -> https://w3c.github.io/ttml2/index.html#content-value-quoted-string `<quoted-string>` in TTML2 ED
16:45:24 <cyril> cyril has joined #tt
16:45:30 <cyril> rrsagent, pointer
16:45:30 <RRSAgent> See https://www.w3.org/2019/11/07-tt-irc#T16-45-30
16:45:37 <nigel> Nigel: We invoke a backslash in the syntax there.
16:46:35 <nigel> Glenn: If you look at TTML1 3rd Ed ... It's there.
16:46:44 <nigel> Nigel: TTML1 3rd Ed has it under `<familyName>`
16:47:00 <nigel> Glenn: [looks] it's in TTML1 2nd Ed too, maybe I didn't look well enough and it's in 1st Ed too!
16:47:57 <nigel> .. It wasn't in 1st Ed, we added it in 2nd Ed. So it's been around a while, but not in the very beginning. We didn't use it
16:48:24 <nigel> .. in any of TTML1 in the syntax descriptions, we didn't use the double backquote.
16:48:44 <nigel> .. When we normalised the syntax in TTML2 we changed all the literals to string literals; we had used character literals
16:48:55 <nigel> .. with single quotes in TTML1 2nd and 3rd Edition.
16:49:35 <nigel> Nigel: Why don't we do something really simple here, to say where we use `\\` what we mean is a single backslash?
16:50:59 <nigel> .. The PR has a "for example" but I'm proposing making it not an example, but the rule.
16:51:06 <nigel> Glenn: Problem is you could escape quotation marks.
16:51:09 <nigel> Nigel: But we don't
16:51:12 <nigel> Glenn: But we could
16:51:15 <nigel> Nigel: But we don't
16:52:01 <nigel> Glenn: The quotation marks are only significant only after escape processing should ...
16:52:16 <nigel> Nigel: But it's our choice in the spec if we use that anywhere and I don't believe we do, so we don't need this.
16:52:25 <nigel> Glenn: Ah I see what you're saying. Are you sure we don't?
16:52:29 <nigel> Nigel: It's worth checking
16:52:47 <nigel> Glenn: You're correct we don't at present do that.
16:54:24 <nigel> Nigel: So the only thing we need to define is that \\ means \ in the document content.
16:54:32 <nigel> Glenn: Just remove "after escape processing"?
16:54:55 <nigel> Nigel: Also make the note in 2190-2192 in this PR normal spec text and remove "For example,"
16:54:59 <nigel> Glenn: Oh I see what you're saying.
16:55:20 <nigel> Pierre: If I understand, instead of making a blanket statement about escaping, merely state this specific case?
16:55:21 <nigel> Nigel: Yes
16:55:29 <nigel> Pierre: I agree with that, it's the simplest and safest approach.
16:56:03 <nigel> Glenn: OK, regarding lines 2188 and 2189, shall I revert those to the original text?
16:56:06 <nigel> Nigel: I would say so, yes.
16:56:23 <nigel> Glenn: Ok so revert those and then change 2190-2193 to normative text and remove the "for example" and that's it.
16:56:26 <nigel> Nigel: Yes
16:56:41 <nigel> Glenn: Sounds good, I can do that. I'll change this to 2nd Ed CR milestone.
16:56:45 <nigel> Nigel: Brilliant, thank you.
16:57:11 <nigel> SUMMARY: @skynavga to make changes as minuted above.
16:57:20 <nigel> Topic: Meeting close
16:59:38 <nigel> Pierre: Do you know what is happening with IMSC 1.2 FPWD?
16:59:49 <nigel> Nigel: I'm not actually sure, I haven't managed to chase that up yet.
17:00:06 <nigel> Pierre: Let me know how I can help, I'm getting a little concerned that nothing happened this week.
17:00:10 <nigel> Nigel: Understood.
17:01:17 <nigel> .. For today, we're out of agenda and out of time, so I'll adjourn. Same time next week unless there's a big pile of
17:01:36 <nigel> .. agenda requests in which case we can extend to 2 hours as per normal operation. Thanks for getting through
17:01:42 <nigel> .. so much today everyone. [adjourns meeting]
17:01:47 <nigel> Chair: Nigel
17:01:52 <nigel> rrsagent, make minutes
17:01:52 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2019/11/07-tt-minutes.html nigel
17:05:54 <nigel> s/.. I see Glenn just added a comment to the agenda asking to discuss #1128 first./Nigel: I see Glenn just added a comment to the agenda asking to discuss #1128 first.
17:06:05 <nigel> s/Nigel: I see Glenn isn't on audio - not sure if there's a problem there Glenn?//
17:36:11 <nigel> rrsagent, make minutes
17:36:11 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2019/11/07-tt-minutes.html nigel
17:36:52 <nigel> scribeOptions: -final -noEmbedDiagnostics
17:36:56 <nigel> rrsagent, make minutes v2
17:36:56 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2019/11/07-tt-minutes.html nigel
19:26:15 <Zakim> Zakim has left #tt