16:00:46 RRSAgent has joined #tt 16:00:47 logging to https://www.w3.org/2020/03/05-tt-irc 16:00:49 RRSAgent, make logs Public 16:00:50 Meeting: Timed Text Working Group Teleconference 16:01:59 atai2 has joined #tt 16:02:05 Previous meeting: https://www.w3.org/2020/02/27-tt-minutes.html 16:02:07 scribe: nigel 16:02:21 Present: Andreas, Cyril, Gary, Pierre, Nigel 16:02:29 Chair: Gary, Nigel 16:02:35 Regrets: none 16:02:49 Agenda: https://github.com/w3c/ttwg/issues/99 16:02:57 Present+ Atsushi 16:03:07 present+ 16:03:23 Topic: This meeting 16:03:56 Nigel: Lots to cover today - IMSC 1.2 feature requests, IMSC 1.2 CR CfC, TTML2 CR Tests, 16:04:02 .. and DST switch. 16:04:10 Present+ Glenn 16:04:30 .. Is there any other business to cover, or particular points to cover not listed on the agenda? 16:04:45 group: [none] 16:04:59 Topic: IMSC 1.2 New feature requests 16:05:54 glenn has joined #tt 16:06:25 Nigel: We have recently had 3 new feature requests for IMSC 1.2. 16:06:45 .. We need to decide if we go for CR based on the IMSC 1.2 FPWD or do editorial work 16:06:49 .. to support some of these feature requests. 16:07:01 Cyril: Timeline of Rec - assuming most aggressive schedule, is Rec in 4-5 months 16:07:03 .. reasonable? 16:07:08 https://w3c.github.io/spec-releases/milestones/?fpwd=2019-11-28 16:11:00 Nigel: 28 days for PR from CR, assuming we have no tests to complete, then a few weeks 16:11:09 .. to REC. The hold up might be the call for exclusions period. 16:11:45 Atsushi: The Call for Exclusion period is 60 days. For IMSC 1.2 this would be completed on April 26. 16:12:44 Nigel: In that case the period would be 2 months before Rec. 16:12:50 Cyril: Assuming all transitions would go well. 16:13:10 .. I think the CfC still has a week to run, then the transitions have to happen. 16:13:27 .. From a Netflix perspective if IMSC 1.2 is going to be published in more than 3 months (roughly) 16:13:44 .. then we will not insist on having the feature in IMSC 1.2 because we will not be able to change our plans anyway. 16:13:58 Nigel: Confused - do you mean less than 3 months? 16:14:13 Cyril: let's say we add fontShear to IMSC 1.2 today. If Rec publication would be more than 3 16:14:25 .. months from now it wouldn't fit Netflix timeline so we would not insist on that. 16:14:37 .. We still want the feature but we would wait for the next version. 16:14:46 .. Maybe I was a little over-optimistic before. 16:15:42 Nigel: For me that is a clear steer that we should proceed with IMSC 1.2 as is, and 16:15:56 .. soon open up for new requirements for IMSC 1.3 including the three recently raised, 16:16:11 .. which simplifies things a lot. Any views from others in the group? 16:16:33 group: [silence] 16:16:45 Nigel: I think silence means everyone agrees that is the right answer. 16:16:47 Pierre: Yes. 16:17:44 Nigel: Thanks for reminding us of the CfC Cyril. That has 1 week to run, and currently 16:17:47 .. no objections. 16:17:54 -> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tt/2020Feb/0017.html Call for Consensus to publish IMSC 1.2 CR 16:19:13 Nigel: We now have the choice of iterating through the three new issues to register that 16:19:20 .. we will consider them for the next version. 16:19:30 Pierre: I don't think we should rush ahead with those - there may be impacts on TTML2 16:19:39 .. and CSS, so we cannot make a judgement call now. 16:19:52 .. There may be some that we decided not to do in the past because they are too hard. 16:20:00 .. We need to come prepared to discuss them with plenty of time. 16:20:19 Nigel: OK, this is the sort of thing where a face to face meeting (if we can have those) 16:20:24 .. would be quite useful. 16:22:13 Nigel: I will add a note offline to the new issues saying we mentioned them in today's 16:22:25 .. call and will consider them for future versions of IMSC 1.2, etc. 16:22:41 Pierre: Thanks. 16:23:09 Nigel: The status of the CfC at the moment is that it still stands. 16:23:28 Topic: TTML2 2nd Edition CR Publication - Tests 16:24:14 Nigel: Thanks to everyone, chiefly Glenn, who has worked on the ttml2-tests issues. 16:24:41 .. There are some where we need to agree we don't need tests, and others where I've 16:24:46 .. been insistent that we do need tests. 16:24:57 Glenn: I can accommodate the request for those tests. 16:25:00 Nigel: That makes me happy. 16:25:10 Glenn: I can make one of the issues marked as not testable as testable. 16:25:20 .. I've gone through and created issues for them and will now make a pass at 16:25:31 .. creating tests - that's my test for this coming week, and I will try to deal with 16:25:35 .. the reopened issue 200. 16:25:49 .. If I get through those then I will also make a stab at getting one set of implementations 16:26:03 .. done on TTT/TTV/TTPE so we'll see where that stands this time next week. 16:26:51 Nigel: I wonder if we can seek group agreement for things we don't need to test right now. 16:27:04 Glenn: Unless someone disagrees, then there are no objectiosn. 16:27:10 s/iosn/ions 16:27:40 Nigel: I agree, let's highlight the issues are open and ask people to review them. 16:27:46 -> https://github.com/w3c/ttml2-tests/issues TTML2 tests 16:27:57 Cyril: Can we recap on the status? 16:28:10 Glenn: No new PRs. I created issues for all the TTML2 PRs except those I marked as 16:28:12 .. untestable. 16:28:18 Cyril: How many were untestable? 16:28:59 Glenn: I think maybe 1..2..3 - ttml2#1099, ttml2#1109 and ttml2#1096, 16:29:25 .. and that's it at the moment. 16:29:32 Cyril: I agree they are not testable on those three. 16:29:38 Nigel: I think I did as well. 16:30:03 Glenn: Overall I created 7 new issues, and I will proceed with creating PRs in the ttml2-tests 16:30:11 .. repository specifying new tests. 16:30:25 .. In most of those issues I created a comment that suggested a possible test approach. 16:30:40 Nigel: For at least one where there wasn't such a comment I added one. 16:31:46 .. I'd ask everyone to review the 2nd Ed changes and verify that they're happy with the 16:31:49 .. proposed test approach. 16:32:01 Glenn: I see you raised an issue on TTML2, and I found another editorial one, so we have 16:32:07 .. a couple of changes there. 16:32:28 Topic: Tests in general 16:32:31 Cyril: Question about tests in general. When I was reviewing the tests, especially all the 16:32:42 .. IMSC 1.1 tests I discovered we have lots of places where there are tests. 16:32:53 .. I wonder if after this effort of going to CR we could create a single repo maybe with 16:33:04 .. git submodules, and then annotating which tests should pass in which version of which 16:33:12 .. spec would be really helpful to implementers. 16:33:24 Glenn: Those tests are not for implementers so I would say a big N O. 16:33:34 .. The sole purpose of the tests is to pass CR. 16:33:46 Cyril: Still a single place for the tests would be really useful. 16:34:05 Glenn: I agree but tests for implementers is a completely different effort and a significant 16:34:20 .. effort too. FYI the structure of the tests there now are mostly bound to at least some 16:34:32 .. implementations used during the verification process to get to Rec and it would let's say 16:35:55 .. break downstream systems for verifying them, e.g. TTT if we moved them. 16:36:07 .. If we want to maintain TTV being able to perform verification on TTML1 and TTML2 it 16:36:19 .. would break things. If we don't care about maintaining TTV then that's a different story. 16:38:07 Nigel: One path out of this would be to filter and copy existing tests into a new place, 16:38:21 .. and consider the marketing value of doing that - for example we may want to put them 16:38:29 .. into Web Platform Tests. 16:38:46 Glenn: We should think about why we are doing this - I think it is a worthy project to make 16:39:01 .. interoperability tests but we would need to know who would back and fund it. 16:39:12 .. The idea of web platform tests is a good one. That project if I recall was backed by a whole 16:39:24 .. slew of organisations and funding from facebook and others if I recall correctly, to build 16:39:46 .. the infrastructure to do that. It's a nice idea, but it doesn't sound right to me to take 16:39:52 .. what we have now and restructure it. 16:40:31 Topic: AOB - DST switch 16:40:48 github: https://github.com/w3c/ttwg/issues/103 16:41:10 Nigel: Looking at the votes on the 3 options we have 4, 4 and 3. 16:41:26 q+ 16:42:05 ack atai2 16:42:15 Andreas: I signalled my presence but want to give a stronger weight to people 16:42:27 .. who regularly join and are more involved. I see for example that Cyril has a clear 16:42:40 .. preference for option 1. For me option 2 is better but option 1 is not impossible and 16:42:56 .. also I have to admit that I often have blocking issues, if that helps to make a decision. 16:43:03 Nigel: Thank you for that. 16:43:15 Cyril: I have a preference for option 1 but could live with option 2 if needed. 16:45:25 Nigel: What do you think Gary? 16:45:44 Gary: I would like to leave it eventually in my local time because of a block of meetings 16:45:49 .. on Thursday mornings. 16:45:59 Nigel: I think it's important that Chairs can attend! 16:46:05 .. I could make it either way. 16:46:31 Cyril: One thing to bear in mind is that we sometimes have a 2 hour session. Which is easier 16:46:33 .. in that case? 16:47:14 Nigel: For me that makes no difference. 16:48:10 Gary: If we extend an hour after that might be easier. 16:48:24 Nigel: The hour before was a historical thing from when we used to begin at 1500 UTC. 16:48:30 .. (actually 1100 Boston) 16:49:18 Atsushi: I have a clash an hour before so it would be easier if we make 2 hour meetings 16:49:20 .. extend later. 16:49:24 Nigel: Shall we say option 2? 16:49:31 Gary: There don't seem to be any objections. 16:49:46 Nigel: There were no down-votes. So that's done. 16:49:58 .. Thanks everyone, I will adjust the meetings to suit. 16:51:03 SUMMARY: Option 2 selected. 16:51:45 Nigel: This means that for all the remaining meetings in March the start time will be 1600 UTC. 16:51:55 Pierre: Can I suggest you send an Outlook invite for the next few meetings? 16:51:58 Nigel: Will do. 16:52:00 Pierre: Thanks. 16:52:18 Glenn: On 2nd April it will be one hour later? 16:52:26 Nigel: No, earlier, 1500. 16:52:40 Atsushi: I will check the TTWG website too. 16:52:48 Nigel: And we should reissue the joining instructions too. 16:53:07 .. The webex schedule might need adjusting too - I will cover that offline. 16:53:33 Topic: Meeting close 16:54:44 Nigel: Thanks everyone, let's adjourn there, having completed our agenda. 16:54:52 .. Meet same time UTC next week. [adjourns meeting] 16:54:57 zakim, end meeting 16:54:57 As of this point the attendees have been Andreas, Cyril, Gary, Pierre, Nigel, Atsushi, Glenn 16:54:59 RRSAgent, please draft minutes v2 16:54:59 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2020/03/05-tt-minutes.html Zakim 16:55:03 I am happy to have been of service, nigel; please remember to excuse RRSAgent. Goodbye 16:55:07 Zakim has left #tt 16:56:51 atai2 has left #tt 17:00:44 s/Topic: IMSC 1.2 New feature requests/Topic: IMSC 1.2 New feature requests and CR CfC 17:02:44 s/ that's my test for this coming week/ that's my plan for this coming week 17:03:33 s/I see you raised an issue on TTML2/Thanks for that. I see you also raised an issue on TTML2 17:05:11 RRSAgent, please draft minutes v2 17:05:11 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2020/03/05-tt-minutes.html nigel 17:08:34 scribeOption: -final -noEmbedDiagnostics 17:08:36 RRSAgent, please draft minutes v2 17:08:36 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2020/03/05-tt-minutes.html nigel 17:10:01 s/scribeOption: -final -noEmbedDiagnostics// 17:10:07 scribeOptions: -final -noEmbedDiagnostics 17:10:09 RRSAgent, please draft minutes v2 17:10:09 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2020/03/05-tt-minutes.html nigel 17:21:45 github-bot, end topic