{Minutes} TTWG Meeting 2020-02-20

Thanks all for joining today's TTWG call. Minutes can be found in HTML format at https://www.w3.org/2020/02/20-tt-minutes.html


In text format:

   [1]W3C

      [1] https://www.w3.org/


                Timed Text Working Group Teleconference

20 February 2020

   [2]Previous meeting. [3]Agenda. [4]IRC log.

     [2] https://www.w3.org/2020/02/13-tt-minutes.html

      [3] https://github.com/w3c/ttwg/issues/95

      [4] https://www.w3.org/2020/02/20-tt-irc


Attendees

   Present
          Cyril, Gary, Nigel, Pierre, plh

   Regrets
          Andreas, Atsushi, Glenn

   Chair
          Gary, Nigel

   Scribe
          nigel

Contents

     * [5]Meeting minutes
         1. [6]This meeting
         2. [7]IMSC 1.2 HR
         3. [8]TTML2 2nd Edition CR Publication
         4. [9]Meeting close

Meeting minutes

  This meeting

   Nigel: Today we have [iterates through agenda] and we're quite
   light on people so let's see what we can do.
   … Any other business to raise for the meeting?

   group: [no other business]

  IMSC 1.2 HR

   Nigel: Let's look at the issue:

   github: [10]https://github.com/w3c/ttwg/issues/76


     [10] https://github.com/w3c/ttwg/issues/76


   Nigel: I checked the "Privacy" box because I believe Jeffrey
   Yaskin's response covered IMSC 1.2 as well as TTML2
   … I filed an issue for TAG earlier in the week.
   … It was slightly unsatisfying because the issue template asked
   for good things that I don't think we have.
   … In particular I chose the best thing I could find for the
   explainer, but I don't know if we have anything better.

   Pierre: I think that thread has all the information.
   … There's another thread I think, the actual issue on
   imsc-vnext-reqs.

   Nigel: I looked at that and decided it was not as useful.

   Pierre: Alright, thanks.

   Nigel: Then I think we have not updated the security and
   privacy self review for IMSC 1.2.

   Pierre: I remember spending a lot of time on this, maybe for
   IMSC 1.1

   Nigel: The thing here is that the changes we have made do
   potentially impact security.

   Pierre: Look at w3c/imsc#503

   Nigel: Ah, great, thank you!

   Pierre: We did a lot of work, we just don't remember.

   Nigel: Right!
   … I've added that in to the TAG request
   … I also did request an expedited review since the delta is
   small.

   <plh> [11]https://www.w3.org/wiki/

   DocumentReview#Horizontal_Groups

     [11] https://www.w3.org/wiki/DocumentReview#Horizontal_Groups


   Nigel: The last box in this HR review is for security. We have
   not sent this I think.

   Philippe: You have to send it to public-web-security.

   Pierre: Let's make sure we have not done this already.

   Nigel: If I'd done it I should have added it to this issue.

   <plh> [12]https://www.w3.org/Search/Mail/Public/

   search?type-index=public-web-security&index-type=t&keywords=ims
   c&search=Search

     [12] https://www.w3.org/Search/Mail/Public/search?type-index=public-web-security&index-type=t&keywords=imsc&search=Search


   Philippe: [searches the archive] I don't have anything for IMSC
   since 1.1.

   Nigel: OK I need to send something.

   Philippe: You copy/paste what you have to that list.

   Cyril: Given that IMSC is a profile of TTML and TTML went
   through that step do we need to do anything?

   Philippe: That's a good point.
   … It doesn't hurt to send an email. Do you need to hold on it
  to get an answer?
   … My suggestion would be no.

   Gary: Also back in October Nigel sent a security review request
   for TTML2 2nd Ed.

   Philippe: A simple email saying we plan to move this forward
   and given it is a profile we don't believe it
  … needs a security review, so this is for information.

   Nigel: Okay I can certainly do that.

   <plh> [13]https://w3c.github.io/

   horizontal-issue-tracker/?repo=w3c/i18n-activity

     [13] https://w3c.github.io/horizontal-issue-tracker/?repo=w3c/i18n-activity


   Nigel: This is good, the number of upstream dependencies has
   reduced.

   Philippe: I see TTML2 related issues on i18n.

   Nigel: All those are in hand, and labelled to be dealt with in
   a future edition of TTML2.

   Philippe: Then I agree likely we won't get new issues for IMSC
   1.2.

   Pierre: We could pick a target date for IMSC 1.2 CR today and
   work towards that.
   … Given we don't know of outstanding issues and we think the
   risk is low maybe we should just do that.
   … Then we can let HR groups know.
   … What about 3 weeks?

   Nigel: Our Charter says to allow 3 months for HR.

   <plh> "The Working Group is advised to seek a review at least 3
   months before first entering CR and is encouraged to
   proactively notify the horizontal review groups when major
   changes occur in a specification following a review."

   Pierre: I don't think 3 months is warranted for this size of
   change.
   … I propose saying 3 weeks and let TAG know.
   … Be apologetic, ask them to let us know if they want us to
   hold off.

   Philippe: I would give 4 weeks because 28 days is mentioned in
   the Process quite often.

   Pierre: OK that's fine with me, let's do that.

   Philippe: NB the Charter provides "advice" not a requirement.

   Pierre: I guess in this case it is just to avoid going to CR
   and then the TAG coming back with a major issue that
   … requires a 2nd CR. It makes sense to give them a couple of
   weeks for a quick review to see if they have a bad reaction.

   Nigel: OK sure I will add a message to Tess on the ticket.

   Philippe: You should give them the option to ask for more time.

   Nigel: Yes.

   Nigel: OK if we are to publish CR in 4 weeks then we will need
   a resolution to publish, and time to prep for the
   … publication.
   … Are there any open issues we plan to resolve in IMSC 1.2?
   … [looks] Seems like no.
   … We need to make sure the IMSC 1.1 errata are factored in.

  Pierre: We were pretty methodical in doing that I believe.

   Nigel: OK given the number of people on the call I think it is
   fairer to issue a CfC for publication.

   Pierre: I think so yes.

   Nigel: But just as a checkpoint, does anyone on this call have
   any objections to publishing in 4 weeks?

   group: [no objections]

   Pierre: Nigel, let me know if you need any input on the email
   to the TAG, I will be happy to help.

   Nigel: OK, thank you for the offer.
   … I think that's it for this topic.

   SUMMARY: @nigelmegitt to send messages to Security and TAG and
   the other HR recipients advising of the plan to publish in 4
   weeks, and to issue CfC for publication.

  TTML2 2nd Edition CR Publication

   Nigel: The specific subtopic here was tests; I'm not aware of
   any progress. Anyone?

   Cyril: Nothing to report from me. I noticed there are plenty of
   audio related features.

   Nigel: OK I should really look at that.

   Cyril: Also anyone else interested in those features.

   Nigel: OK we have nothing more to discuss on this I think.

  Meeting close

   Nigel: Thanks everyone. We've done what we can today. See you
   next week. [adjourns meeting]


    Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by
    [14]scribe.perl version 104 (Sat Dec 7 01:59:30 2019 UTC).

     [14] https://w3c.github.io/scribe2/scribedoc.html