Meeting minutes
This meeting
nigel: for today, we have a bunch of incoming comments from APA on IMSC. we need to iterate and see if we need a change before CR or not
nigel: we have IMSC1.2 CR but not sure we need to discuss
nigel: only one AOB item for the DST issue
IMSC 1.2
pal: I have an update to the IMSC test reel
<atsushi> (will be here shortly - last call continuing)
pal: I was hoping plh would be here and have progress on it
nigel: we have issues 519 to 524 that concern accessibility
APA WG comment: Reference to WCAG 2.1 imsc#519
<nigel> github: https://github.com/w3c/imsc/issues/519
nigel: they are suggesting that we do a change about WCAG
… change 'recommends' to 'requires'
… D.1 does not say it's not normative
… so that would be a normative change
… we have to do that before publishing CR?
pal: that's news to me because WCAG are guidelines and do not use MUST or SHALL
… it was not clear to me that they were requirements
nigel: they're called guidelines, they have success criteria
gkatsev: WCAG has a conformance section
pal: my recommendation would be to remove the word 'recommends' and replace it with 'specifies' so that the WCAG document speaks for itself, instead of us trying to interpret it
nigel: the text currently says 'recommends that an implementation provide'
… it's not very clear if it's the implementation or the content provider
pal: in general, my preference would be to paraphrase as little as possible and point to WCAG
nigel: I agree it feels uncomfortable to try to interpret another recommendation
… I would make an adjustment to pal's proposal
… "specifies provision of"
pal: I can take a pass at it and propose text
nigel: it's further down as well
… in paragraphs 5 and 6
nigel: in terms of CR, this is a change to normative text
… I would be more comfortable delaying that by a couple of weeks
… it's likely to have less of an impact now that if we do it later
pal: the question in my mind is: is that going to change anythign
nigel: as in what?
pal: I don't think it changes any conformance to IMSC
nigel: it does not look like we have conformance language associated with it but it is in a normative section
pal: on the basis of that one, that's not a change of requirements
… the risk is not very high
nigel: for this specific issue, we should have an editorial pass
SUMMARY: Discussed in today's call and agreed to do an editorial pass to adjust the text so that it no longer interpret WCAG guidelines as recommendations
APA WG comment: Requested Additional WCAG 2.1 References
github: https://github.com/w3c/imsc/issues/520
nigel: this is going to require some work
… that would go in section D.1
… they all make sense
pal: at some point it becomes easier to point to the WCAG spec instead of pointing to each of them
nigel: the helpful thing here would be to describe the relevant part of an IMSC document that might be used to achieve these guidelines
… for example, for contrast in a text profile we can point to how to do it
… 1.4.3 minimum contrast could point to color and background color
… we could also point to xml:lang
… the useful thing is not to re-express the guidelines but indicate the tools to do that
pal: that makes sense
… we can give it a try
cyril: now or in a new edition?
nigel: that will not affect any processor or conformance, it's a usage guideline
… a document author should be aware of how to use color/backgroundColor to meet these guidelines
… this is in the same category as the previous issue #519
cyril_: how will we consider done?
nigel: we create a PR and ask them to review
SUMMARY: Discussed in today's meeting and agreed to do an editorial pass to list those additional success criteria and how to address them in the context of IMSC
APA WG comment: Add note on alt text
github: https://github.com/w3c/imsc/issues/521
pal: the text that is being suggested might already be in 5.1
… I can take an action item to determine if the text is already present and if not, add it to the annex D
nigel: they wanted to specifically put it in the altText section
pal: we should not put where the syntax is defined but I'm happy to go through the document to make sure the concept is in
pal: that note is actually best handled in annex D when we describe how to meet the criteria
nigel: makes sense
SUMMARY: Discussed in call today. The editor will consider the best location to incorporate this advice for document authors
APA WG comment: Add introduction
github: https://github.com/w3c/imsc/issues/522
pal: before taking any action, I'd like to know if they've considered the text in 5.1
cyril_: maybe the fact that it's in 5.1 and not early
pal: exactly, happy to move some of it to an introduction if it suits them
SUMMARY: Discussed today. Pierre to ask follow-up question on this issue.
APA WG comment: Author proposes, user disposes
github: https://github.com/w3c/imsc/issues/523
nigel: we have MAUR in D.2
… this particular issue recommends adding a note to the spec
pal: I can see what it means but the wording does not seem useful
… as a general idea, saying that the final rendering depends on user settings, local regulation ...
… we could say that, if don't say it already somewhere
nigel: I do have a bit of a fundamental problem
… authors specifying layout is not an issue
… it's a positive point
… the authors know what's in the video when the subs will be presented
… I get that sometimes people want to override that
gkatsev: I agree with you Nigel but on the other hand, it would be useful for author that it's going to happen
… for example for the CVAA in the US and the font-size change
… the captions can become too big and missing
pal: we've had this discussion many times before
… there are different regulations in different places
… I don't think we can summarize it in one sentenc
… I don't know how to make a sentence that is productive
… just saying it might not be rendered as the author intended is not sufficient
nigel: we don't provide in IMSC any tools that the author can sensibly take advantage of
… the closest is overflow and wrap option
… but even then, they are not that useful
… we could say don't make region as tight as possible
… there are techniques that you can put for specific cases
… the second point is that this note is more targeted to implementers of processors rather than authors
… we might want to get back to them to ask if they meant authors
… because this specification says in the absence of anything else this is how to render
… but in practice implementers have to take other things into account
pal: we could reference issue #316
… the resolution was to add the reference to MAUR
… my proposed disposition would be in the MAUR section to add a note along the lines of what you just mentioned
cyril: What about adding an example?
… We could say there are plenty of ways for authors to take into account and give
… the example like what Nigel said not to make the region too tight so the text does
… not get clipped.
pal: in section D.2
… we have one sentencee
… we could expand on that
gkatsev: I think maybe it's enough to say that authors should specify styling and positioning and that due to MAUR it may be overriden
pal: I like that, we could say the document specifies a nominal rendering
… I want to avoid saying 'authors'
gkatsev: the sticking point is that users can modify the rendering (not the accessibility requirements)
nigel: the formal term we can make use of here is the "document processing context"
… users may influence the document processing context to modify the actual presentation in order to meet the MAUR guidelines
SUMMARY: Discussed and editor to add text to D.2 to express this concept
APA WG comment: semantic layers
github: https://github.com/w3c/imsc/issues/524
nigel: TTML and IMSC permit metadata description to be specified on particular bit of information
… there is no formal requirement to do anything on that
… the facility to have layers exist already
… by using e.g. ttm:role
… but there is no normative requirement on processor to use it
… so force content provides a clear mechanism for authors and processors to define a interoperable presentation behavior
pal: "Forced" is a very specific tool for a very specific use case
… the broader question is how to indicate the semantics of timed text
… how to get the consistency across the ecosystem but that's beyond the scope of IMSC
SUMMARY: this is a really interesting topic, but we don't think we can make any useful change to IMSC in response to this comment
SUMMARY: TTWG suggests this should be the beginning of a conversion with APA and other interested parties
CFC
nigel: there were no objections
… the editorial passes that we agreed to do, do not affect the normative parts
… my proposal would be to say that the CFC is approved for CR publication
… and we'll address the APA issues during CR phase
cyril_: +1
pal: good
nigel: it seems there is no objection from the group
Resolution: Publish IMSC1.2 CR on March 19th
Nigel: I think that gives Atsushi what he needs and the action moves to Pierre and Atsushi
… to get the materials ready for publication. Thanks everyone for that.
AOB - #104
Nigel: [short of time] Can we take this offline or defer until next week?
Atsushi: Yes, if someone who can open ics files could check the file in the pull request
… please that would be very helpful?
Nigel: I will try to do that. Others welcome to also.
Meeting close
Nigel: Thank you everyone, and thank you Cyril for scribing. I found that really interesting.
… We're out of time so I'll adjourn now, see you next week. [adjourns meeting]