16:01:51 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #tt
16:01:51 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2020/07/27-tt-irc
16:01:53 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
16:01:54 <Zakim> Meeting: Timed Text Working Group Teleconference
16:02:15 <nigel> Meeting: Timed Text Working Group + Privacy Interest Group joint Teleconference
16:02:31 <atsushi> atsushi has joined #tt
16:03:27 <nigel> Agenda: https://github.com/w3c/ttml2/issues/1202
16:04:05 <nigel> Present: Andreas, Atsushi, Glenn, Nigel, Pierre
16:04:08 <nigel> Chair: Nigel
16:05:51 <nigel> Present+ Sam
16:07:13 <atai1> atai1 has joined #tt
16:08:36 <nigel> Glenn: Want to make sure we raise the general issue about a lack of PING documentation
16:08:50 <nigel> .. on this area instead of a one-off basis.
16:09:08 <nigel> Sam: What need are the two documents [questionnaire + one other not scribed] not meeting?
16:09:13 <nigel> Glenn: I have not reviewed those.
16:09:20 <nigel> Pierre: The questionnaire is a questionnaire.
16:09:32 <nigel> .. What would be awesome in my mind is something like the APA's concrete guidelines.
16:09:40 <nigel> Sam: Have you looked at the fingerprint guidance document?
16:09:56 <nigel> Pierre: Yes, I didn't recall it addressing this issue.
16:10:09 <nigel> .. It would be really good if there were a single consistent document that does 90% of the
16:10:16 <nigel> .. work to minimise the work of authors and the guesswork.
16:10:28 <nigel> Sam: And the questionnaire left you guessing too much?
16:10:38 <nigel> Pierre: As evidenced by this long thread.
16:10:51 <nigel> Sam: Not sure, seemed like the breakdown was at a different layer, on normative requirements
16:10:53 <nigel> .. and testing.
16:11:06 <nigel> Pierre: If there was a general document, we could point to that and say "do that".
16:11:20 <nigel> .. For accessibility for example, we don't repeat the requirements, but interpret them in the
16:11:23 <nigel> .. context of TTML.
16:11:32 <nigel> .. I'm just contrasting the process.
16:11:48 <nigel> Sam: Sure, okay, I will take that, not sure what I'll do with it, but look again and see if we
16:11:55 <nigel> .. can do better in what we're providing for you.
16:12:08 <nigel> .. Glenn, since you raised it, i'd encourage you to look at both documents.
16:12:19 <nigel> Glenn: I think the point is we don't want to repeat the information that is in the guidance
16:12:30 <nigel> .. document and if the information in there is not complete or adequate, then to the extent
16:12:31 <plh> plh has joined #tt
16:12:43 <nigel> .. that it is general purpose and cannot cover our specific application area, we don't want to
16:12:52 <nigel> .. be in the business of figuring that language out.
16:13:03 <nigel> .. And we don't want to prevent you from making normative statements in your domain
16:13:17 <nigel> .. where in our domain we want to qualify how we make use of our requirements.
16:13:21 <nigel> Sam: We may have different visions.
16:13:34 <nigel> Glenn: It's the reality of how we interact with different groups.
16:13:42 <nigel> Present+ Philippe
16:13:44 <weiler> weiler has joined #tt
16:14:06 <nigel> scribe: nigel
16:15:47 <nigel> Nigel: I think it would be useful to remind ourselves what the objectives are.
16:16:02 <nigel> Sam: Not opposed, but we may be able to address the two core issues without rehashing
16:16:03 <nigel> .. everything.
16:16:20 <nigel> Nigel: Summarising those two core issues.
16:17:26 <nigel> Glenn: I think we have a higher level issue. The Group has a consensus to move ahead
16:17:44 <nigel> .. with what we have right now; the problem Sam is to convince us to change our consensus
16:19:05 <nigel> Nigel: [interrupts] we're here to try to come to a resolution that has no objections.
16:19:12 <nigel> Philippe: What are the technical issues?
16:19:30 <nigel> Glenn: We cannot add a normative requirement that we cannot test.
16:19:50 <nigel> .. The request is to normatively require implementers specifying how they make use of
16:20:00 <nigel> .. installed fonts and if they are allowed to be used by the implementation for the purpose
16:20:05 <nigel> .. of processing TTML content.
16:20:18 <atai1> q+
16:20:23 <nigel> .. In all the TTML technology to date we place no constraints whatsoever on any use of
16:20:32 <nigel> .. fonts. The specification has no concept of what fonts are available on the system.
16:20:44 <nigel> .. Similarly to how a CSS implementation does not know what fonts are on the system,
16:20:54 <nigel> .. it has font family names and those are mapped through some black box process that is
16:21:01 <nigel> .. part of the implementation to font resources.
16:21:16 <nigel> .. Recently we provided an explicit binding to downloadable fonts from font family names.
16:21:18 <plh> https://www.w3.org/TR/ttml2/#embedded-content-vocabulary-font
16:21:27 <nigel> .. Even in that case it is still a black box in the sense that an implementation is free to map
16:21:38 <nigel> .. font family names to any resource it wants to even in the presence of downloaded font
16:21:49 <nigel> .. resources. The implementation is part of the document processing context which is
16:22:01 <nigel> .. unspecified and out of the scope of the specification, traditionally. We have never tried
16:22:15 <nigel> .. to undertake to define the document processing context in the way that, say, HTML5
16:22:29 <nigel> .. tried to define the browser, e.g. fetch semantics and privacy considerations around those
16:22:36 <weiler> q+
16:22:47 <nigel> .. fetch semantics. All those have been part of the implementation out of scope of the TTML
16:23:01 <nigel> .. specification. This has been the first request to treat this in a normative fashion.
16:23:02 <plh> q+
16:23:26 <nigel> Andreas: I think you started the right way Nigel in asking about the objectives, and that's
16:23:39 <nigel> .. where we should start. We want to satisfy the objectives of PING, rather than being
16:23:50 <nigel> .. lost in a formal discussion. Overall I have read from the comments that what you want to
16:24:02 <nigel> .. do is guide implementers to make the right choice and protect the privacy of the user.
16:24:14 <nigel> .. From the thread there is no dispute about the recommendation, just about the formal
16:24:29 <nigel> .. expression of that recommendation. Nick Doty proposed a "should" keyword, which is
16:24:42 <nigel> .. a recommendation, and he said that it would be good to add that a processor should not
16:24:57 <nigel> .. dereference external font resources conditionally. There is argument about using normative
16:25:04 <nigel> .. language, but not about using some text.
16:25:18 <nigel> .. One proposal is to define the same meaning with a phrasing like "it is recommended not to..."
16:25:28 <nigel> .. that would mean the same thing, but not be normative language formally.
16:25:49 <pal> pal has joined #tt
16:25:52 <nigel> .. I wanted to know how this relates to the objectives of PING.
16:25:52 <pal> q+
16:26:04 <nigel> Glenn: [very quickly] I want to point out that we have a precedent of using SHOULD and
16:26:16 <nigel> .. SHOULD NOT in non-normative parts of the specification, in Notes. As it turns out, we
16:26:28 <nigel> .. can use those keywords in non-normative text and I have no objection to doing that.
16:26:34 <nigel> ack atai
16:26:55 <nigel> Sam: Thank you Andreas for answering the question I wanted to ask. It is good to know that
16:27:30 <nigel> .. we are agreed on the outcome and are just discussing the way that we express it in the
16:27:32 <nigel> .. specification.
16:27:33 <nigel> q?
16:27:36 <nigel> ack w
16:27:42 <weiler> ack plh
16:27:54 <nigel> Philippe: Not all of the assertions in specifications can be tested. It is pretty common in
16:28:09 <nigel> .. our specifications, mainly because we cannot properly test it. For example HTML is a
16:28:24 <nigel> .. prime example about that, like chapter 5 was untested and is impossible to test. That was
16:28:34 <nigel> .. about loading pages.
16:28:47 <nigel> .. So the idea of a MUST that is untestable will not shock me or the Director. You just have
16:28:58 <nigel> .. to explain the reason why you don't have a test.
16:29:10 <nigel> .. The pull requests we have usually say you should have an accompanying test, these days,
16:29:15 <nigel> .. or an explanation for why not.
16:29:30 <nigel> .. I understand that the request is to prevent fingerprinting based on installed fonts by
16:29:40 <nigel> .. getting an implementation to dereference the font URLs.
16:29:58 <nigel> .. As an implementer I would like to know that I would put users at risk if I blindly
16:30:06 <nigel> .. dereference fonts.
16:30:17 <nigel> .. Even if we cannot test this normative statement it is still guidance we would like to give
16:30:19 <nigel> .. to implementers.
16:31:09 <nigel> Nigel: [I think this is about conditional deferencing]
16:31:39 <nigel> Philippe: No, dereferencing a unique URL will identify you uniquely. You don't have to use cookies
16:31:40 <nigel> q?
16:31:43 <nigel> q+ glenn
16:31:59 <nigel> Pierre: 2 things. First, for the record, my objection to the proposed MUST language is that
16:32:10 <nigel> .. we are really at the 11th hour, and as Philippe just mentioned there may be other
16:32:16 <weiler> q+
16:32:22 <nigel> .. privacy considerations that should be taken into account. By rushing this we are likely
16:32:33 <nigel> .. to make mistakes, and we should try to do it completely and properly in the next
16:32:47 <nigel> .. iteration. I agree with Philippe that it is important to identify for implementers the
16:32:48 <atai1> q+
16:33:03 <nigel> .. pitfall. I think the mitigation may not be the right one. I think we are trying to do too
16:33:16 <nigel> .. much too quickly and will do more harm than good. Instead we should highlight the
16:33:28 <nigel> .. pitfalls to implementers and put our thinking caps on and think about full mitigation
16:33:33 <nigel> .. in the next revision. Thanks.
16:33:34 <weiler> q+ to ask about 11th hour and for specifics about the harm PAL envisions
16:33:34 <nigel> q?
16:33:37 <nigel> ack pal
16:33:57 <nigel> Glenn: My point is that traditionally in specification areas we want to separate mechanism
16:34:15 <nigel> .. from policy. What we're doing here is mixing up the two. To put something Pierre said
16:34:29 <nigel> .. in more formal terms, we are putting both in one statement without carefully distingiushing
16:34:43 <nigel> .. between them. The TTML mechanism is formally defined as a black box in the control
16:34:57 <nigel> .. of the implementer. Potentially we are talking about imposing policy on the semantics
16:35:12 <nigel> .. of that black box, which is an external behaviour. Formalising policy around that and
16:35:27 <nigel> .. separating it out in an appropriate way is going to take time and we are not going to
16:35:39 <nigel> .. do it quickly. It is for certain that we are not going to get it right in the context of the
16:35:53 <nigel> .. current language in appendix P. That's why I was suggesting to Sam that if PING had a
16:36:06 <nigel> .. document that describes a formalism for mechanisms that could be referenced by
16:36:21 <nigel> .. other specifications that make use of such semantics and formalise policies in a coherent
16:36:34 <nigel> .. way it would save a lot of nailbiting and gnashing of teeth in meetings like this. I continue
16:36:46 <nigel> .. to hold my position that this is not the time or place to make the changes being proposed.
16:36:48 <nigel> q?
16:36:51 <nigel> ack g
16:36:54 <nigel> ack w
16:36:54 <Zakim> weiler, you wanted to ask about 11th hour and for specifics about the harm PAL envisions
16:37:10 <nigel> Sam: I have a couple of responses to Pierre. You say "11th hour". At what point did you
16:37:21 <nigel> .. enter the 11th hour? When would this have been more timely?
16:37:23 <plh> q+
16:37:24 <nigel> Pierre: FPWD maybe?
16:37:39 <nigel> Sam: Can you throw a year or a date at it?
16:37:48 <nigel> .. I'm wondering if the Dec 2019 PING review was already 11th hour?
16:38:03 <nigel> Pierre: Not sure where we're going with this. This was a small tweak. Some features were
16:38:03 <plh> q+
16:38:20 <nigel> .. deferred to a later edition because they were too late. It's not saying it's not a worthwhile
16:38:27 <plh> q+ to talk about timing, dereferencing
16:38:30 <nigel> .. thing, just it is not a good match for this edition, without prejudice.
16:38:35 <nigel> q?
16:38:50 <nigel> Glenn: We introduced downloadable fonts a couple of years ago.
16:39:17 <nigel> Sam: Re the harm. I heard Pierre say this could do more harm than good. I'm puzzled bu
16:39:37 <nigel> .. that, wondering what harm is done by saying, now, "you SHOULD" mitigate this.
16:39:43 <nigel> Pierre: The suggestion is a SHALL not a SHOULD.
16:39:52 <nigel> Sam: I thought it was a SHOULD.
16:40:06 <nigel> Pierre: That makes a big difference in my mind. I don't have an objection to SHOULD.
16:40:08 <nigel> q?
16:40:13 <nigel> q+ glenn
16:40:30 <nigel> q- at
16:40:43 <nigel> Andreas: Quickly, also concerning that point, what we are talking about is not a SHALL or
16:40:55 <nigel> .. a SHOULD, but if it is normative language or not. What Nick proposed was a SHOULD.
16:40:59 <nigel> .. That's an important point.
16:41:16 <nigel> Pierre: I still think it is a bad idea but if it is a SHOULD then it can be ignored.
16:41:27 <nigel> Andreas: Not getting caught up on procedure, we have the same objections, and need to
16:41:37 <nigel> .. find some middle ground, not necessarily the optimal solution.
16:41:40 <nigel> .. Two ways to do it:
16:41:54 <nigel> .. 1. Normative language "SHOULD". It is often overread unfortunately.
16:42:05 <nigel> .. I would say if you highlight it with non-normative language it may get more attention
16:42:14 <nigel> .. for the developers to follow it, which should be our goal.
16:42:25 <nigel> .. At the moment, our question is how to give implementers best guidance, and then what
16:42:31 <weiler> q?
16:42:43 <nigel> .. we can do more. I think we should be able to find a solution on this call.
16:43:00 <nigel> .. 2. was using non-normative language saying the same with non-normative language.
16:43:15 <nigel> Philippe: I heard plenty of good things here. We are talking about maintaining a Rec here.
16:43:29 <nigel> .. The feature is not new - it was shipped in 2018 as a Rec. We should maintain our
16:43:42 <nigel> .. specification and not block on a single issue. That's my philosophy on that.
16:43:59 <nigel> .. Andreas is right - the only question is whether we should have a normative SHOULD or not.
16:44:11 <nigel> .. I think Glenn and Pierre mentioned they could accept it.
16:44:20 <nigel> .. Sam, at the end of the day, how much does it matter to PING?
16:44:40 <nigel> .. Ideally we should be pointing to a document about dereferencing URLs, obviously we can
16:44:48 <weiler> q?
16:44:50 <nigel> .. not do that right away, anyway, that's what I heard that I liked.
16:44:52 <nigel> ack pl
16:44:52 <Zakim> plh, you wanted to talk about timing, dereferencing
16:44:54 <nigel> ack g
16:45:05 <nigel> Glenn: I wanted to clarify that SHOULD/SHOULD NOT language can be made normative
16:45:24 <nigel> .. or non-normative. Right now, in Appendix P, which is non-normative annex describing
16:45:37 <nigel> .. privacy and security terms. I would object to changing the status to normative.
16:46:27 <nigel> .. I do not object to using SHOULD or SHOULD not in the current non-normative appendix P.
16:46:31 <nigel> q?
16:46:47 <atai1> q+
16:46:50 <weiler> q+
16:47:49 <nigel> Nigel: Can I check in with Sam if Andreas's proposed "strongly encouraged not to" is okay?
16:47:55 <nigel> Sam: In the issue?
16:48:04 <nigel> -> https://github.com/w3c/ttml2/issues/1202#issuecomment-648721821 Andreas's proposal
16:48:23 <nigel> Sam: I don't think I care one way or the other, if you want to express it this way.
16:48:43 <nigel> .. In general, Philippe says he is not sure what the PING thinks about normative mitigations.
16:48:54 <nigel> .. We have made a clear statement a year or so on W3C website, that we want privacy
16:49:01 <pal> q+
16:49:08 <nigel> .. mitigations to be normative at the same level of the spec that is defining the problem.
16:49:25 <nigel> .. Hiding the language in a non-normative section seems inappropriate. Taking out
16:49:28 <pal> q-
16:49:29 <nigel> .. the SHOULD I can cope with.
16:49:32 <nigel> ack an
16:49:35 <nigel> ack at
16:49:50 <nigel> Andreas: I also wanted your view on the solution. Are you saying that if we put it in this
16:49:56 <nigel> .. non-normative section this would be okay with you?
16:50:11 <nigel> Sam: No, I'm saying I want it to be normative, and if it is in a different section then so be it.
16:50:27 <nigel> Andreas: I would like you to reconsider this, it is about objectives not strict policies, because
16:50:41 <nigel> .. otherwise we cannot find a solution. We can say this is not a perfect solution for the spec,
16:50:44 <weiler> qq+
16:51:00 <nigel> .. and if we put this in there now we are not hiding it, but explaining it. TTML is very big,
16:51:13 <nigel> .. it is hidden everywhere or nowhere. Then the second step is to find a solution after that.
16:51:21 <nigel> .. We all say the problem is not solved by this sentence alone.
16:51:39 <nigel> .. We need both parties, and better investigation. We are not privacy experts, and PING are
16:51:52 <nigel> .. not TTML experts. If we, after this publication, try to find a way to properly work out a
16:52:06 <nigel> .. solution like Pierre proposed, that would help the cause much more than blocking each other.
16:52:16 <nigel> .. I'm sure you don't want to block us, but I think working on it more later would help.
16:52:35 <nigel> Sam: I'm a fan of that, but want to come back to objectives rather than strict policies.
16:52:43 <pal> q+
16:52:51 <weiler> ack me
16:52:51 <Zakim> weiler, you wanted to react to atai
16:52:52 <nigel> .. Other than what I've read in the WG I don't understand the group's objections.
16:52:53 <weiler> ack me
16:53:00 <nigel> .. I think they were about making it normative and being 11th hour.
16:53:00 <nigel> q?
16:53:04 <nigel> ack pal
16:53:06 <nigel> q+
16:53:25 <nigel> Pierre: On this topic it is not clear to me if a solution would be only to dereference to
16:53:32 <nigel> .. trusted servers, or other mitigations.
16:53:52 <nigel> Sam: Ok, going back to the harm framing, is there harm from giving this spec now knowing
16:53:53 <plh> q+
16:54:02 <nigel> .. that we will come back to it later.
16:54:10 <plh> [[
16:54:11 <plh> <nigel> Andreas: I would like you to reconsider this, it is about objectives not strict policies, because
16:54:11 <plh> <nigel> .. otherwise we cannot find a solution. We can say this is not a perfect solution for the spec,
16:54:11 <plh> <weiler> qq+
16:54:11 <plh> * Zakim sees weiler, weiler on the speaker queue
16:54:11 <plh> <nigel> .. and if we put this in there now we are not hiding it, but explaining it. TTML is very big,
16:54:13 <plh> <nigel> .. it is hidden everywhere or nowhere. Then the second step is to find a solution after that.
16:54:15 <plh> <nigel> .. We all say the problem is not solved by this sentence alone.
16:54:15 <nigel> Pierre: The harm is mandating a solution that is not the only one.
16:54:17 <plh> <nigel> .. We need both parties, and better investigation. We are not privacy experts, and PING are
16:54:19 <plh> <nigel> .. not TTML experts. If we, after this publication, try to find a way to properly work out a
16:54:21 <plh> <nigel> .. solution like Pierre proposed, that would help the cause much more than blocking each other.
16:54:23 <plh> <nigel> .. I'm sure you don't want to block us, but I think working on it more later would help.
16:54:39 <nigel> q?
16:54:44 <nigel> q+ glenn
16:55:37 <plh> Nigel: testability is really important to me. I think that the TTWG has decided not to add untestable non-normative statement
16:55:59 <plh> ... the env is which TTML is used is broader than the typical Web
16:56:13 <plh> ... eg TTML in DVB, for pushing fonts in receivers
16:56:24 <plh> ... so not a traditional back channel
16:56:35 <plh> ... those systems have no privacy impact not so ever
16:56:44 <plh> ... so we could be overwriting too much
16:57:29 <weiler> s/giving this/mandating this mitigation now in this/
16:57:46 <nigel> Philippe: Until we go to the Director we don't know the answer.
16:57:57 <nigel> .. I don't want PING to ask the Director to override the TTWG because noone wants
16:58:05 <pal> q+
16:58:13 <nigel> .. that to happen. I understand why TTWG doesn't want the normative statement, and I
16:58:23 <nigel> .. don't want this to be on the Director's desk as an issue.
16:58:35 <plh> [[
16:58:37 <plh> A content processor SHOULD NOT dereference external font resources conditionally on the presence of user-installed fonts, where that dereferencing could reveal information about the user's system or fingerprint the user.
16:58:38 <plh> ]]
16:58:39 <nigel> .. Pierre made the point that Nick's proposed wording is too restrictive in its solution.
16:59:06 <nigel> .. Can we make it less restrictive? Can we ask to consider the privacy implications on the user,
16:59:07 <nigel> .. say?
16:59:14 <nigel> Sam: I think that's why we have SHOULD not MUST.
16:59:23 <nigel> Pierre: To be fair it's also making this text normative.
16:59:28 <plh> q?
16:59:30 <plh> ack nigel
16:59:34 <plh> ack plh
16:59:35 <nigel> .. Those two things together are where the divergence of opinion is.
16:59:48 <plh> ack glenn
16:59:50 <plh> q- pal
17:00:45 <nigel> Glenn: My opposition is that the requirement to state a policy is wrong, and this is a policy.
17:00:51 <nigel> q?
17:00:56 <atai1> q+
17:01:08 <nigel> ack at
17:01:31 <glenn> glenn has joined #tt
17:01:31 <nigel> Andreas: I think Pierre had to leave.
17:01:33 <plh> q+
17:01:38 <nigel> ack pl
17:01:44 <glenn> I am opposed to dictating a policy. Period.
17:01:50 <nigel> Philippe: I would suggest if we have not got an agreement, I would advise TTWG to go
17:01:58 <weiler> q+
17:02:01 <nigel> .. as far as they are willing to go, potentially this is already the case, and unfortunately
17:02:13 <nigel> .. we would potentially have to go to the Director. Since you are willing to do something,
17:02:16 <glenn> I can accept making  a non-normative policy recommendation.
17:02:26 <nigel> .. it would be good to at least do that and go as far as you are willing to go.
17:02:55 <nigel> Sam: I hear you (Glenn) that the WG has consensus not to do normative. While WG may have
17:03:10 <nigel> .. consensus, the consortium as a whole may not. The Director may judge that the W3C
17:03:16 <atai1> q+
17:03:23 <nigel> .. does not have consensus, so I may see the Director's role as being a bit different.
17:03:34 <nigel> Philippe: Let's not put the Director into an ivory tower.
17:03:49 <nigel> .. The absence of consensus -> the spec stays as is.
17:03:59 <nigel> ack a
17:04:04 <weiler> q-
17:04:09 <nigel> Andreas: I think it is okay what you see Philippe that TTWG goes back and thinks about
17:04:17 <glenn> TTML2 1ED is already published without any policy recommendation, normative or not.
17:04:21 <nigel> .. the possible solution, but I would also like to appeal to Sam to think about that too so
17:04:34 <nigel> .. that we are coming together. The worse is that we are spending time on formal
17:04:48 <nigel> .. solutions and not really addressing the problem. I think both solutions are equally as good
17:05:02 <nigel> .. or as bad as each other. If both groups can think about solutions and PING can reconsider,
17:05:18 <nigel> .. that would be good. If both camps are just trying to push a strict policy then it is really
17:05:22 <nigel> .. difficult.
17:06:28 <weiler> what risk?
17:06:59 <weiler> we've already agreed to SHOULD instead of MUST.  What is the risk?  or harm?
17:07:41 <glenn> We only agree to making SHOULD/SHOULD NOT in a non-normative section.
17:08:04 <nigel> Nigel: Attempting to summarise, we have not really managed to go back to 1st principles
17:08:14 <nigel> .. and objectives, but maybe we do understand those better.
17:08:27 <glenn> One reason is because normative SHOULD and SHOULD NOT statements have testing impact.
17:08:42 <glenn> While non-normative ones do not.
17:09:11 <nigel> .. However I think the best thing we can do is, as Philippe suggested, to make as much
17:09:25 <nigel> .. progress as we can, and proceed on that basis, and work more on this in the future.
17:09:33 <nigel> [Sam drops off the call]
17:09:56 <nigel> Philippe: I can understand the TTWG's perspective here and recognise that TTWG does
17:10:12 <nigel> .. understand Sam's and PING's points. In the absence of consensus, the status quo is what
17:10:31 <nigel> .. is in effect, which is what was in the Rec in 2018.
17:11:14 <nigel> Nigel: Thank you everyone, I will make a comment on the issue summarising this call,
17:11:26 <nigel> .. and will publish the notes. Sorry for running 10 minutes over. [adjourns meeting]
17:11:29 <nigel> rrsagent, make minutes v2
17:11:29 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2020/07/27-tt-minutes.html nigel
17:11:37 <atai1> atai1 has left #tt
17:13:57 <nigel> i/Glenn: Want to make sure we raise/Topic: General PING documentation
17:15:13 <nigel> i|Nigel: I think it would be useful|Topic: CSS font-matching algorithm may introduce fingerprinting issues w3c/ttml2#1202
17:15:17 <nigel> rrsagent, make minutes v2
17:15:17 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2020/07/27-tt-minutes.html nigel
17:16:11 <nigel> s/puzzled bu/puzzled by
17:16:44 <nigel> s/<nigel> Andreas: I would like you to reconsider this, it is about objectives not strict policies, because//
17:16:51 <nigel> s/<nigel> .. otherwise we cannot find a solution. We can say this is not a perfect solution for the spec,//
17:16:58 <nigel> s/<weiler> qq+//
17:17:05 <nigel> s/* Zakim sees weiler, weiler on the speaker queue//
17:17:12 <nigel> s/<nigel> .. and if we put this in there now we are not hiding it, but explaining it. TTML is very big,//
17:17:18 <nigel> s/<nigel> .. it is hidden everywhere or nowhere. Then the second step is to find a solution after that.//
17:17:25 <nigel> s/<nigel> .. We all say the problem is not solved by this sentence alone.//
17:17:31 <nigel> rrsagent, make minutes v2
17:17:31 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2020/07/27-tt-minutes.html nigel
17:18:21 <nigel> s/[[/[x[
17:18:24 <nigel> s/[[//
17:18:29 <nigel> s/[x[/[[
17:18:35 <nigel> rrsagent, make minutes v2
17:18:35 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2020/07/27-tt-minutes.html nigel
17:19:27 <nigel> s/<nigel> .. We need both parties, and better investigation. We are not privacy experts, and PING are//
17:19:34 <nigel> s/<nigel> .. not TTML experts. If we, after this publication, try to find a way to properly work out a//
17:19:44 <nigel> s/<nigel> .. solution like Pierre proposed, that would help the cause much more than blocking each other.//
17:19:50 <nigel> s/<nigel> .. I'm sure you don't want to block us, but I think working on it more later would help.//
17:19:55 <nigel> s/Nigel: testability is really important to me. I think that the TTWG has decided not to add untestable non-normative statement//
17:20:16 <nigel> s/... the env is which TTML is used is broader than the typical Web//
17:20:23 <nigel> s/... eg TTML in DVB, for pushing fonts in receivers//
17:20:28 <nigel> s/... so not a traditional back channel//
17:21:08 <nigel> i/Philippe: Until we go to the Director/Nigel: testability is really important to me. I think that the TTWG has decided not to add untestable non-normative statement
17:21:27 <nigel> i/Philippe: Until we go to the Director/.. the env is which TTML is used is broader than the typical Web
17:21:45 <nigel> s/... those systems have no privacy impact not so ever//
17:21:54 <nigel> s/... so we could be overwriting too much//
17:22:20 <nigel> i/Philippe: Until we go to the Director/..eg TTML in DVB, for pushing fonts in receivers
17:22:35 <nigel> i/Philippe: Until we go to the Director/.. so not a traditional back channel
17:22:46 <nigel> i/Philippe: Until we go to the Director/.. those systems have no privacy impact not so ever
17:22:56 <nigel> i/Philippe: Until we go to the Director/.. so we could be overwriting too much
17:23:01 <nigel> rrsagent, make minutes v2
17:23:01 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2020/07/27-tt-minutes.html nigel
17:24:38 <nigel> i/Andreas: I think Pierre /[scribe cannot hear Glenn's audio clearly]
17:24:40 <nigel> rrsagent, make minutes v2
17:24:40 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2020/07/27-tt-minutes.html nigel
17:25:21 <nigel> s/I think it is okay what you see/I think it is okay what you say
17:29:03 <nigel> rrsagent, make minutes v2
17:29:03 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2020/07/27-tt-minutes.html nigel
17:31:07 <nigel> s/[I think this is about conditional deferencing]/I think this is about conditional deferencing
17:31:39 <nigel> s/[interrupts]/[interrupts as Chair]
17:35:08 <nigel> s/I think that the TTWG has decided not/The TTWG has decided not
17:35:31 <nigel> s/no privacy impact not so ever/no privacy impact whatsoever
17:36:30 <nigel> rrsagent, make minutes v2
17:36:30 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2020/07/27-tt-minutes.html nigel
17:37:44 <nigel> s/untestable non-normative/untestable normative
17:38:33 <nigel> scribeOptions: -final -noEmbedDiagnostics
17:38:35 <nigel> zakim, end meeting
17:38:35 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been Andreas, Atsushi, Glenn, Nigel, Pierre, Sam, Philippe
17:38:37 <Zakim> RRSAgent, please draft minutes v2
17:38:37 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2020/07/27-tt-minutes.html Zakim
17:38:40 <Zakim> I am happy to have been of service, nigel; please remember to excuse RRSAgent.  Goodbye
17:38:44 <Zakim> Zakim has left #tt
17:39:20 <nigel> rrsagent, excuse us
17:39:20 <RRSAgent> I see no action items