Meeting minutes
this meeting
nigel: some imsc topics, and TTML2 IR, and tests
… there is one AOB which is planning for TPAC
… is there any other business ?
… I noticed a open PR with a stalled discussion
[silence]
IMSC1.2
nigel: we seem to have a way forward to have the rec link fixed on the published spec
Atsushi: last week we discussed editing the spec
… but that was invalid
… the only way is to do in place editing
… simply editing the HTML not using respec
nigel: that's ok we just need to make sure in respec that future editions will have the correct spec
nigel: any other thoughts?
pal: sounds good
pal: very quickly on IMSC1.2
… HR still no feedback on 2 PR from the APA?
nigel: I had an action to ping Michael Cooper
… he responded to my email saying he'd look at it
… but so far hasn't
pal: this is frustrating
… we were responsive in responding to their comments
nigel: I had his response on April 8th
… over a week now
nigel: the earliest date to advance to PR is the 5th of May
… but we need a version integrating comments
… I should nag them
… this is critical path
cyril: if it were a non HR comment, we would have closed the comment already
pal: we should include the team in the email thread
TTML2 2nd Edition Implementation Report - tests
nigel: we have 2 open PRs
… those PRs are againts 2 open issues on TTML2 test
glenn: I just updated PR 252 this morning to add the line breaks as you had requested
… if you are satisfied we can dispatch it
nigel: I will
… have a look
glenn: the other one, I'll run through the issues next day or so
… I need to make a run on the IR document
… still don't know if anybody is working on actual implementation other than BBC on audio
nigel: as far as audio and BBC, we integrated it to our tests and it succeeds
… it's public and visible so I'll add a link in the IR
cyril: Netflix will have a very limited report regarding the new tests
glenn: at least we'll have an implementation by the end of April
<nigel> TTML2 Second Edition Implementation Report
glenn: for all the presentation tests and validation tests
… I'll have to coordinate with Cyril with what they can provide and then see what's missing
cyril: I suspect we will be missing a second validation implementation only
glenn: correct. previously we had other validation implementations, from Pierre and Andreas
… in this particular set of tests, it's a mixture of presentation tests and validation tests
… 50/50
nigel: the current IR needs a review because I know some tests are missing. There are
… quite a few, maybe 15 validation tests, and 20-25 invalid, 3 presentation tests
… I know more presentation tests need to be added
nigel: anything else on that agenda topic?
[silence]
glenn: there are TTML2 editorial issues (typos)
… you had a request to make a change to an example
… I don't like to do it in 2nd edition
… I'd prefer to delay it to 3rd ed
nigel: I already did a PR for a typo fix
… for the other one, I did not understand the concern
… I suggested changing 2 lines in the example
… you made a comment that they have been stable since TTML1
glenn: we are only on record that the only changes that we would do are typo changes
… this is not
… this is not a WR or HR either
nigel: I would consider it WR as it is completely editorial
… not a big deal, but clearly caused confusion
glenn: it wasn't part of the review before CR
nigel: I just received the feedback
… I'll continue to prepare the change regardless of when we merge it
… people were taking the example in the introduction as a good practice for positioning
… it seemed to me that it was worthwhile to address that feedback
glenn: you said that if you have a body that specifies a region and an children with another region, some content would disappear
nigel: yes, it gets pruned
… we had a long discussion in the past and concluded that
glenn: hmm... I believe you are right
nigel: that's why I think it's a bad example
glenn: it's not applicable to the actual example
… that could be resolved by adding a note to the example
nigel: why not
glenn: I would be amenable to adding a note now
nigel: let me have a look
glenn: I just don't want to change the example
TPAC Planning
nigel: you might have seen TTWG issue 112
… staff have sent chairs a link to a survey
… as usual
… obviously this year is weird
… not clear we will have a physical meeting
… they have added questions about a virtual meeting
… not sure the best way is to have the discussion now
… so please have a look
<nigel> github: https://github.com/w3c/ttwg/issues/112
nigel: the virtual meeting questions are
… general attitude towards having it (too complicated, ...)
Atsushi: W3C opened several pages of notes for operations under the current situation
<nigel> Continuity of Operations under Travel Restrictions
Atsushi: for this past one month, there were several F2F 3-4 meetings per day over 1 week
… short meetings is considered an alternative meeting for offline TPAC
… it might be possible to have TPAC over several weeks
… there are several discussions, no solid decision to have online or offline
pal: I want to echo that trying to recreate TPAC virtually is a fool's errands
<atsushi> continuity of operations under travel restrictions
pal: virtual meetings have to be planned differently
… on the other hands, having a time and place to bring together multiple threads is very valuable
… on many weeks or one week
… is a good idea
<atsushi> web payments WG virtual F2F March 2020
cyril: ISO has proposed 3 meetings a day over a concentrated 1 week period,
… at something like 0500, 1000 and 2000 UTC time.
… I think we should avoid trying to do something like that.
… We should focus a virtual TPAC on joint meetings only
Andreas: I agree. It's worthwhile thinking about the goals of TPAC and trying to
… achieve the same goals virtually in whatever form.
… It's a good opportunity to say that what is special about TPAC is not WG meetings,
… but joint meetings, because every group is organised in the same place.
… It would not be a good idea to meet maybe over several weeks, rather over one week in fixed time zones over 2-3
… hours, with short WG meetings for preparation and post-joint-meeting discussions.
… It will be good to wait until the May AC meeting experience, which will also be virtual.
Pierre: I wanted to echo what Cyril says.
… It should be focused on joint work and I don't think that individual groups should
… be encouraged to meet. My observation is that virtual meetings can be more efficient
… but require a lot more pre-planning.
Pierre: When meeting face to face sometimes people take shortcuts, and it is easier
… to have side conversations. Maybe people feel they've set aside the time so they can
… fill it more flexibly. It's hard to tell.
… I like the idea of a TPAC where common threads are brought together but please
… let's not schedule WG meetings during that week.
<Zakim> info, you wanted to comment on AC 2020 May
Atsushi: Just for info about the AC meeting next month.
… It is quite different from WG discussions so W3C will provide pre-recorded videos
… for talks over 9-10 hours and try to have 90 minute conversations, two times.
… That's how virtual AC 2020 will be organised.
… It's quite a different set of conditions from our WG meeting.
Nigel: Would it be a good idea to try to simulate side-conversations?
Pierre: If anyone can crack that it would be great progress for humanity in general!
… If there's a way to solve it that would be great. Current platforms make it really
… hard to have those conversations.
… Those side conversations only happen during meetings, and it isn't facilitated in breaks etc.
… If any org can do it, W3C can!
… It is the missing thing from virtual meetings.
… People work around it somehow. Maybe it can be integrated in meeting planning.
… That's a stretch goal. It is possible to plan TPAC as a virtual meeting, but will require
… more planning than usual.
Nigel: Another question is on the duration and timezone. A single TPAC timezone,
… or using only a small part of the working day that works best globally?
Pierre: I would be pragmatic here for a big plenary. For joint meetings, base it entirely
… on the membership, and who can attend and where they are.
… Picking a single time zone is not pragmatic. It is simple conceptually but makes nobody
… happy other than the people in that timezone. I don't like that solution at all.
Glenn: Was there a location originally planned?
Nigel: Vancouver
Pierre: I'd love it in Vancouver's time zone but I think it's a terrible idea.
… For individual group meetings I would base it entirely on the attendees.
Nigel: We are out of time for today and we covered a lot, but we may need to come back to canvas
… opinions on some of the questions we haven't tackled.
Gary: One idea for the side conversation is time scheduled for a Webex where anyone
… can join, regardless of group, especially if we are doing the remote thing.
… Some people may still have travel restrictions in place.
SUMMARY: Initial discussion: don't try to reproduce TPAC virtually, focus on the joint meetings and main benefits of cross-fertilisation of ideas and groups.
Meeting close
Nigel: Thanks everyone, we're out of time for today. [adjourns meeting]