IRC log of tt on 2020-03-19
Timestamps are in UTC.
- 15:48:57 [RRSAgent]
- RRSAgent has joined #tt
- 15:48:57 [RRSAgent]
- logging to https://www.w3.org/2020/03/19-tt-irc
- 16:00:50 [nigel]
- nigel has joined #tt
- 16:01:32 [nigel]
- nigel has changed the topic to: TTWG Teleconference. Agenda for 2020-03-19 1600 UTC meeting: https://github.com/w3c/ttwg/issues/101
- 16:01:37 [nigel]
- zakim, start meeting
- 16:01:37 [Zakim]
- RRSAgent, make logs Public
- 16:01:38 [Zakim]
- Meeting: Timed Text Working Group Teleconference
- 16:03:20 [nigel]
- Previous meeting: https://www.w3.org/2020/03/12-tt-minutes.html
- 16:03:25 [nigel]
- Agenda: https://github.com/w3c/ttwg/issues/101
- 16:03:50 [nigel]
- rrsagent, pointer
- 16:03:50 [RRSAgent]
- See https://www.w3.org/2020/03/19-tt-irc#T16-03-50
- 16:03:59 [nigel]
- Log: https://www.w3.org/2020/03/19-tt-irc
- 16:04:10 [nigel]
- Present: Atsushi, Andreas, Nigel
- 16:04:12 [nigel]
- Chair: Nigel
- 16:04:15 [nigel]
- scribe: nigel
- 16:04:22 [nigel]
- Regrets: Gary
- 16:05:40 [nigel]
- Present+ Cyril
- 16:05:52 [nigel]
- Topic: This meeting
- 16:05:55 [cyril]
- cyril has joined #tt
- 16:06:07 [nigel]
- Nigel: Today we have some comments on IMSC, a check-point on TTML2,
- 16:06:34 [nigel]
- .. and one AOB so far. Pierre will be with us but half an hour later than the beginning so
- 16:06:39 [nigel]
- .. we should rejig the order
- 16:06:46 [nigel]
- .. Is there any other business?
- 16:07:00 [atai]
- atai has joined #tt
- 16:07:02 [nigel]
- group: [no other business]
- 16:08:09 [nigel]
- Topic: AOB - RFC8759
- 16:08:16 [glenn]
- glenn has joined #tt
- 16:08:20 [nigel]
- NIgel: I thought the group would be interested to know about RFC8759.
- 16:08:36 [nigel]
- -> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8759 RFC8759 RTP Payload for Timed Text Markup Language (TTML)
- 16:09:05 [nigel]
- Nigel: It provides a generic mechanism in the context of RTP for people to send live
- 16:09:15 [nigel]
- s/ live//
- 16:09:21 [nigel]
- .. streams of TTML documents.
- 16:09:31 [nigel]
- .. There are some constraints, like media time only, and the times are related to the
- 16:09:35 [nigel]
- .. RTP timestamps.
- 16:09:49 [nigel]
- .. This is formalisation of work previously discussed with, and reviewed by, this group.
- 16:10:01 [nigel]
- Present+ Glenn
- 16:10:40 [nigel]
- Andreas: Congratulations for it. I think BBC put most work into this?
- 16:10:52 [nigel]
- Nigel: Yes, the author works at BBC R&D.
- 16:11:01 [nigel]
- .. There was other supporting input as well from other parties.
- 16:12:01 [atai]
- q+
- 16:12:19 [nigel]
- ack at
- 16:13:13 [nigel]
- q+ atai
- 16:13:20 [atai1]
- atai1 has joined #tt
- 16:13:37 [nigel]
- ack atai
- 16:14:28 [nigel]
- s/NIgel/Nigel
- 16:14:52 [nigel]
- Andreas: I wanted to ask how this relates to the IMSC live proposal, if this could be a
- 16:14:56 [nigel]
- .. good connecting point to push this?
- 16:15:25 [nigel]
- Nigel: There's a key difference between what can be done with TTML over RTP and
- 16:15:32 [nigel]
- .. what can be done with the proposed TTML Live extensions.
- 16:15:51 [nigel]
- .. That difference is that TTML Live extensions can allow retrospective modification of
- 16:15:58 [nigel]
- .. the content on the TTML timeline.
- 16:16:15 [nigel]
- .. This cannot be done with TTML over RTP because RTP is a "now do this..." type of system.
- 16:17:18 [nigel]
- .. Conversely that RTP way is simpler for the same reason.
- 16:17:28 [nigel]
- Andreas: For EBU-TT live there is the concept of a carriage specification.
- 16:17:33 [nigel]
- .. Is there the same concept for TTML Live?
- 16:17:36 [nigel]
- Nigel: Yes there is
- 16:17:49 [nigel]
- Andreas: Then you would say TTML over RTP would not be such a carriage specification?
- 16:17:57 [nigel]
- .. Or could it be one that uses a subset of the TTML Live extensions.
- 16:18:01 [nigel]
- s/s./s?
- 16:18:14 [nigel]
- Nigel: Really good question. I did write the mapping down at one stage.
- 16:18:54 [nigel]
- .. I wrote something about this a while back:
- 16:19:02 [nigel]
- -> https://github.com/w3c/tt-module-live/blob/master/tt-live-1/design/live-to-rtp.md TT-Live to TTML in RTP and back
- 16:20:23 [nigel]
- .. I should adjust that document now the RFC has been published.
- 16:20:34 [nigel]
- .. This document describes the conversion in each direction. It can be done.
- 16:20:37 [nigel]
- Andreas: Thanks Nigel
- 16:21:32 [nigel]
- Agenda: TTML2 Implementation Report
- 16:22:05 [nigel]
- Nigel: I think the main work now is tests.
- 16:22:20 [nigel]
- .. I saw Glenn's comment on one of the tests yesterday which I reviewed and agreed with.
- 16:22:32 [nigel]
- Glenn: Yes, slow start getting going on those tests, but expect to see some PRs this week
- 16:22:42 [nigel]
- .. on that. I want to get them out there so we can get some implementations wrapped up
- 16:22:54 [nigel]
- .. and get moving on the proposed recommendation process.
- 16:23:32 [nigel]
- Nigel: Also worth noting there has been some activity on the privacy review of IMSC and TTML2
- 16:23:34 [nigel]
- .. this week.
- 16:23:47 [nigel]
- Glenn: Yes, I saw that. I think it won't take much effort. We can pull some small amounts
- 16:23:54 [nigel]
- .. of text into the appendix to address those points.
- 16:24:01 [nigel]
- Nigel: I agree
- 16:24:11 [nigel]
- Glenn: Those will be editorial changes for the proposed Rec.
- 16:24:21 [nigel]
- Nigel: Yes
- 16:24:28 [nigel]
- Glenn: Expect some pull requests for that process too.
- 16:24:46 [nigel]
- Nigel: On the classification of change, they will be changes that have no effect on conformance.
- 16:24:50 [nigel]
- Glenn: That's correct.
- 16:24:57 [nigel]
- .. That appendix is non-normative anyway.
- 16:25:11 [nigel]
- Nigel: That will be useful or important for IMSC 1.2 also.
- 16:25:31 [nigel]
- .. I think we expect to update the ref from IMSC 1.2 to TTML2 to point to TTML2 2nd Ed
- 16:25:38 [nigel]
- .. and that's an agenda point for today.
- 16:26:08 [nigel]
- .. It could be that the resolution to the privacy issues consists of changes both to TTML2
- 16:26:12 [nigel]
- .. and to IMSC 1.2.
- 16:26:57 [nigel]
- Nigel: One of the comments is that TTML doesn't mention anything about secure transport.
- 16:27:04 [nigel]
- .. But I think it makes no comment about transport at all.
- 16:27:18 [nigel]
- Glenn: That's correct. We abstract out the transport by referring to the document
- 16:27:23 [nigel]
- .. processing context.
- 16:27:36 [nigel]
- .. It makes it easy for us to deal with this I think, by throwing it in the black box.
- 16:27:49 [nigel]
- .. We can make handwaving gestures to refer to this to say, if you're interested, pay
- 16:27:59 [nigel]
- .. attention to [blah blah].
- 16:28:34 [nigel]
- Nigel: That's right. One of the suggestions is that we should change any URLs in examples
- 16:28:41 [nigel]
- .. to make sure the protocols are secure ones.
- 16:28:51 [nigel]
- Glenn: Yes I will check that, it may be worth doing.
- 16:29:29 [nigel]
- Topic: IMSC 1.2 - PING comments
- 16:32:11 [nigel]
- Nigel: We received comments from PING via Nick Doty, which he has kindly
- 16:32:34 [nigel]
- .. raised as a GitHub issue.
- 16:33:17 [nigel]
- .. Let's cover those after the other two agenda points.
- 16:33:23 [nigel]
- Topic: IMSC 1.2 CR Transition
- 16:33:43 [nigel]
- Nigel: Where are we up to with transition?
- 16:33:57 [nigel]
- Atsushi: Approval was not gained. It will be discussed in tomorrow's slot, including
- 16:33:59 [nigel]
- .. recent updates.
- 16:34:06 [nigel]
- s/Approval/Immediate approval
- 16:34:33 [nigel]
- Nigel: Does the team need me or Pierre to be part of that discussion?
- 16:34:55 [nigel]
- Atsushi: I need to update following the comments from HR groups.
- 16:35:04 [nigel]
- .. Also comments on these reviews are welcome.
- 16:35:59 [nigel]
- Present+ Pierre
- 16:36:17 [nigel]
- .. Comments on the transition request issue are welcome from you.
- 16:36:39 [nigel]
- Pierre: What's really important for us to understand is if the delay is due to lack of agenda
- 16:36:44 [nigel]
- .. time or because of concerns regarding comments?
- 16:37:04 [nigel]
- Atsushi: It is the first of those. I needed to raise a comment by last Friday's slot.
- 16:37:12 [nigel]
- Pierre: Now it is ready so it can be considered tomorrow?
- 16:37:16 [nigel]
- Atsushi: Yes
- 16:37:24 [nigel]
- Pierre: So there will be no update to the transition request?
- 16:37:31 [nigel]
- Atsushi: We can add new information at any time.
- 16:37:42 [nigel]
- Pierre: If the meeting is tomorrow then we have no more time to make modifications
- 16:37:45 [nigel]
- .. unless we do it now.
- 16:38:00 [nigel]
- .. I want to avoid a response tomorrow to say the request is not complete, let's wait another week.
- 16:38:30 [nigel]
- Atsushi: I think the current transition request is complete and also refers to recent updates.
- 16:38:34 [nigel]
- Nigel: Thank you.
- 16:38:49 [nigel]
- .. Then there will be a small modification to the document to reflect the new publication
- 16:38:51 [nigel]
- .. date.
- 16:38:59 [nigel]
- Atsushi: I believe so.
- 16:39:21 [nigel]
- Topic: IMSC 1.2 Reference to TTML2
- 16:39:30 [nigel]
- Nigel: I wanted to check in with the group here.
- 16:39:42 [nigel]
- .. My assumption has been that we will update the TTML2 ref from IMSC 1.2 to point
- 16:40:09 [nigel]
- .. to TTML2 2nd Edition before going to Rec. Are there any counter-views?
- 16:40:44 [nigel]
- Pierre: I don't have a different assumption, please file an issue.
- 16:40:51 [nigel]
- Nigel: Happy to do that.
- 16:41:04 [nigel]
- .. Does anyone think we should not do it?
- 16:41:08 [nigel]
- group: [silence]
- 16:41:26 [nigel]
- Nigel: OK I think that is consensus to update the ref to TTML2 2nd Ed. Thanks.
- 16:42:28 [nigel]
- -> https://github.com/w3c/imsc/issues/531 IMSC #531 Update TTML2 ref to point to TTML2 2nd Ed
- 16:42:46 [nigel]
- Topic: IMSC 1.2 PING comments regarding privacy
- 16:43:26 [nigel]
- Nigel: The reason it's useful to reference TTML2 2nd Ed is because some of the
- 16:43:35 [nigel]
- .. privacy comments may be addressed in part by reference.
- 16:44:23 [nigel]
- Pierre: I think we need all the issues to be logged on IMSC GitHub.
- 16:44:32 [nigel]
- .. It is not practical to trace comments on other repos.
- 16:44:44 [nigel]
- .. We should not process anything that is not on the IMSC repo.
- 16:45:47 [nigel]
- .. I propose we let the W3C team know this.
- 16:45:55 [nigel]
- Nigel: I'm not aware of any expectation to do so.
- 16:47:15 [nigel]
- .. Just for completion, Nick Doty raised one issue on IMSC 1.2 and one on TTML2.
- 16:47:29 [nigel]
- .. I think this these are all the issues we are expecting following the email review.
- 16:47:45 [nigel]
- .. I also think they made the right call about which repos to file them against.
- 16:48:05 [nigel]
- .. The generic resource fetching issue is filed against TTML2 where the features are defined,
- 16:48:24 [nigel]
- .. and the more specific domain related feature about fingerprinting regarding font
- 16:48:32 [nigel]
- .. matching is filed against IMSC 1.2.
- 16:49:34 [nigel]
- Topic: CSS font-matching algorithm may introduce fingerprinting issues imsc#530
- 16:49:42 [nigel]
- github: https://github.com/w3c/imsc/issues/530
- 16:50:19 [nigel]
- Nigel: Did we actually introduce CSS font matching algorithm?
- 16:50:56 [nigel]
- .. I see at https://w3c.github.io/imsc/imsc1/spec/ttml-ww-profiles.html#text-font-source
- 16:51:01 [nigel]
- .. that we introduced:
- 16:51:07 [nigel]
- .. "A Processor MAY use the [css-fonts-3] §5 font matching algorithm for associating a font with a run of text."
- 16:52:54 [nigel]
- .. My question is, if this is an option, not a requirement, why wouldn't the CSS handling
- 16:53:03 [nigel]
- .. of the privacy issue be implied by reference.
- 16:53:22 [nigel]
- Pierre: Just to point out that in §10.5 we mention the CSS font matching algorithm
- 16:54:13 [nigel]
- .. is also referenced via a defined term Font Matching Algorithm.
- 16:54:17 [nigel]
- .. Editorially we should improve that.
- 16:55:52 [nigel]
- Nigel: Right, and that's in the HRM section.
- 16:56:08 [nigel]
- .. The HRM considerations are in my view concerned with document validation, and there's
- 16:56:21 [nigel]
- .. no requirement for the presentation processor to follow any steps in the HRM to
- 16:56:26 [nigel]
- .. render content.
- 16:57:10 [nigel]
- .. I would not expect a user-oriented player to execute the steps of the HRM.
- 16:57:13 [nigel]
- Andreas: +1
- 16:57:32 [nigel]
- Nigel: And therefore there's no privacy issue associated with 10.5.
- 16:57:40 [nigel]
- .. That takes us back to 8.5.3.
- 16:58:23 [nigel]
- Pierre: To your earlier point Nigel, I don't see what action we can reasonably take.
- 16:59:05 [nigel]
- .. There are a lot of "mays" and "under discussion" and no proposed resolution.
- 16:59:13 [nigel]
- -> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tt/2020Mar/0013.html Email that prompted this issue
- 17:00:58 [nigel]
- Nigel: There are additional questions in the email that are not in the GitHub issue.
- 17:01:11 [nigel]
- Pierre: We have generic text in TTML2 about loading of resources, I believe.
- 17:01:43 [nigel]
- Glenn: There are some handwavy statements
- 17:01:48 [nigel]
- Pierre: About resource fetching?
- 17:02:06 [nigel]
- .. In the absence of specific concerns we can only offer generic guidance.
- 17:02:10 [nigel]
- Glenn: Exactly.
- 17:02:22 [nigel]
- .. I don't know what we can practically say.
- 17:02:34 [nigel]
- Pierre: We can ask about specific issues with the TTML2 text.
- 17:02:43 [nigel]
- Glenn: Ask for spec-ready text we can drop in.
- 17:02:53 [nigel]
- Pierre: Exactly, that's what we should do.
- 17:03:05 [nigel]
- .. We can't tell CSS and HTML how to do fingerprinting mitigation.
- 17:05:59 [pal]
- pal has joined #tt
- 17:06:19 [atsushi]
- +1
- 17:06:33 [nigel]
- SUMMARY: TTWG thanks @npdoty for raising this. In the context of continuing discussions and without understanding any specific improvements we can currently make, we will proceed with no changes for the time being.
- 17:06:54 [nigel]
- SUMMARY: Discussion of additional questions raised in the linked email to continue offline.
- 17:07:24 [nigel]
- Topic: Meeting close
- 17:07:59 [nigel]
- Nigel: Thanks everyone. [adjourns meeting]
- 17:08:05 [nigel]
- zakim, end meeting
- 17:08:05 [Zakim]
- As of this point the attendees have been Atsushi, Andreas, Nigel, Cyril, Glenn, Pierre
- 17:08:07 [Zakim]
- RRSAgent, please draft minutes v2
- 17:08:07 [RRSAgent]
- I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2020/03/19-tt-minutes.html Zakim
- 17:08:10 [Zakim]
- I am happy to have been of service, nigel; please remember to excuse RRSAgent. Goodbye
- 17:08:14 [Zakim]
- Zakim has left #tt
- 17:15:00 [nigel]
- s/Agenda: TTML2 Implementation Report/Topic: TTML2 Implementation Report
- 17:17:29 [nigel]
- rrsagent, make minutes v2
- 17:17:29 [RRSAgent]
- I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2020/03/19-tt-minutes.html nigel
- 17:21:14 [atai1]
- atai1 has left #tt
- 17:21:27 [nigel]
- scribeOptions: -final -noEmbedDiagnostics
- 17:21:29 [nigel]
- rrsagent, make minutes v2
- 17:21:29 [RRSAgent]
- I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2020/03/19-tt-minutes.html nigel
- 17:21:51 [nigel]
- github-bot, end topic
- 19:06:06 [github-bot]
- github-bot has joined #tt