- From: Nigel Megitt <nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk>
- Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2021 17:19:06 +0000
- To: Timed Text Working Group <public-tt@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <C8164884-639A-4BDC-B7ED-C28E37B51DD6@bbc.co.uk>
Thanks all for attending today’s TTWG call. Minutes can be found in HTML format at https://www.w3.org/2021/11/11-tt-minutes.html
Summary:
* IMSC-HRM has been published as FPWD
* Nigel and Pierre to review Horizontal Review checklist and propose any changes for IMSC-HRM
* Pierre and Nigel to initiate Wide Review of IMSC-HRM by sending messages to liaisons and other Charter-listed organisations
* Atsushi to create a new imsc-hrm-tests repository
* Nigel to propose changes to the draft Charter to take into account discussion points
* Cyril to present Netflix TTAL in first meeting of December
In text format:
[1]W3C
[1] https://www.w3.org/
Timed Text Working Group Teleconference
11 November 2021
[2]Previous meeting. [3]Agenda. [4]IRC log.
[2] https://www.w3.org/2021/10/14-tt-minutes.html
[3] https://github.com/w3c/ttwg/issues/202
[4] https://www.w3.org/2021/11/11-tt-irc
Attendees
Present
Andreas, Atsushi, Cyril, Nigel, Pierre
Regrets
Gary
Chair
Nigel
Scribe
nigel
Contents
1. [5]This meeting
2. [6]IMSC HRM
1. [7]Merging the PR
2. [8]Should we initiate the HR process immediately?
3. [9]IMSC HRM tests
3. [10]Charter
1. [11]Charter/Process crossover
4. [12]Meeting close
Meeting minutes
This meeting
Nigel: Today we have IMSC HRM
… And I'd like to add an extra item to that, which is about
tests.
… Also we have Charter
… And A question about Registries
… Any other business or points to make sure we cover?
group has no other business
IMSC HRM
Nigel: Good news, we published the FPWD, alongside a tweet and
blog post.
… Thank you Pierre and Atsushi for getting that done.
… Call for Exclusion has been issued.
Merging the PR
Pierre: Were any other changes made other than the publication
date so I can merge the PR?
Atsushi: I edited the github reference and the date.
Pierre: Okay, thanks.
Atsushi: There are some respec issues that made me have to edit
the HTML, but they should get fixed.
Pierre: Should I change only the date or do you want to make
those changes on the PR?
Atsushi: I think only the date.
Pierre: OK, thanks.
Should we initiate the HR process immediately?
Nigel: The sooner we initiate Horizontal Review the better.
… I wonder if we're ready to do it now?
… We have an empty Privacy and Security Considerations section,
so we should write something there.
… It should be quite easy to write.
… The nature of this, i.e. specifying a tool that does static
analysis of a document, means that there isn't really any
consideration at all.
… Does that seem fair?
Pierre: Yes.
Nigel: I will raise an issue for this.
… I've raised [13]https://github.com/w3c/imsc-hrm/issues/12
which is incomplete, just so we have something in place.
… Any other thoughts on HR?
[13] https://github.com/w3c/imsc-hrm/issues/12
Pierre: How do we actually start it? Is it automatic?
Nigel: It's not automatic
… But there are tools that help, I think.
<atsushi> [14]https://www.w3.org/Guide/documentreview/
[14] https://www.w3.org/Guide/documentreview/
Atsushi: We need to follow the checklist in the document I just
pasted. After that I can take an action to add to the HR
repositories.
… One minor question. Do we assume the document is already
stable?
Nigel: There's one issue open on the content I think.
Atsushi: I understand that. If we assume we develop some
section more then it may be better to wait.
Nigel: My sense is that resolving the open issue about span
will have no impact on HR.
Pierre: My sense is that any change for that issue will have no
impact on HR.
… Experience is that starting HR sooner is helpful.
… It should be uneventful because the content has already been
published.
… We could go through the checklist now.
… How do you want to do it Nigel?
Nigel: I think I'd like 2 members to volunteer and go through
and comment on the ticket.
… Because this should be easy, hopefully we will have the same
conclusions.
… Doing offline more efficient, if we have something to discuss
then if need be we can do it on a call.
Pierre: Happy to volunteer to do that.
Nigel: Me too.
… That's now assigned to me and Pierre on the Github issue.
… Any other questions or thoughts on Horizontal Review?
Atsushi: Do we want to get wider review from external WGs or
external parties?
Pierre: Yes we definitely should send this to ATSC. We've done
this in the past.
… It's a courtesy FYI so they're aware of it.
Nigel: It's more than that - to get to CR we have to
demonstrate Wide Review.
Pierre: The Charter requires us to do it, right?
Nigel: Yes.
… Since this is content from a previous Rec we could try to
make the case that it's already had review, but
… I think it's better to go through the cycle as normal for a
new spec.
Pierre: Since we've made some changes we should highlight what
we've done and the clarifications we have made.
Nigel: Yes
… Atsushi did that answer your question?
Atsushi: Yes
Nigel: Any more on HR?
Pierre: Do you want to do tag team on the text to send, and you
can send it Nigel?
Nigel: Thanks, that'd be great.
IMSC HRM tests
Nigel: We already have imsc-tests - do we want to create a
subfolder in there for HRM tests or
… create a new repo just for HRM tests?
Pierre: I vote for a separate repo but happy to be convinced
otherwise if someone has strong views.
Nigel: I have no strong views.
… (on this!)
Pierre: The IMSC HRM project I have worked on has some tests so
we could use those.
Nigel: Sounds like a good start.
… Should we create a new repo called imsc-hrm-tests for those
then?
Pierre: Sounds good to me
<atsushi> +1
Nigel: Atsushi, please could you do that?
Atsushi: Yes, let me take an action for next week.
Nigel: done, as [15]https://github.com/w3c/ttwg/issues/206
[15] https://github.com/w3c/ttwg/issues/206
Nigel: Thank you - when that's created we can look at
populating it later.
Charter
Nigel: I think we're getting there with this - I will need to
add IMSC HRM as a New Technical Report.
Cyril: Many of you go, Netflix has been working on a project
called Timed Text Authoring Lineage,
… and it's an activity that we want to bring to W3C.
… Nigel I'm wondering if we can add something to the Charter
for that?
… Do you want me to make a formal presentation of the activity
to the Group?
… What's the process?
Nigel: Good question. I think there's a fighting chance that we
have one deliverable that covers
… both TTAL and Audio Description requirements, and if we can
do that, then we should.
Cyril: Is it a Technical Report or a Rec Track document?
Nigel: Both.
… What I think would work well is if you could update the
requirements and use cases for AD to include the requirements
of TTAL.
Cyril: Okay but do we need to do anything in the Charter?
Nigel: Would it work if...
Cyril: Change "TTML Profile for Audio Description" to "TTML
Profile for Audio Description and Dubbing Workflows"?
Nigel: That's what I was going to suggest!
Pierre: Can we put on screen the latest draft of the Charter?
It's a good opportunity to review what it says.
… It seems weird that we have to anticipate all the potential
applications of TTML that we may want over 2 years?
… Can we write the Charter so we don't have to explicitly list
those.
Nigel: We already have: "The Working Group MAY develop
additional Recommendation-track and non-Recommendation-track
Technical Reports."
Pierre: Okay.
Nigel: But if we know we want to do this then it makes sense to
signal it.
Atsushi: Actually if there is a resolution in the WG we can add
anything to the new TR section even if we don't have a finished
draft yet.
… Some WGs have the ability to incubate new Rec track
specifications. The WG lists potential specs under incubation
in a community group.
… We can list any document if we consider we might be able to
work on it in the period of the Charter.
Nigel: Yes, that's what we do now, which is fine.
Atsushi: On the other hand we can re-charter at any point to
include new specs in the TR section.
Nigel: Oh, that's horrible!
… Every time we have to recharter it's pain, admin headache and
we would rather do less of that.
… I would rather have a more flexible charter.
Pierre: I think we need to write that the group will work on
profiles of TTML.
… If during review someone is not happy then we can talk about
it.
Nigel: I will prepare a PR for that, and to remove TTML3 too.
Pierre: Please point me to it and I will be happy to join the
conversation.
Nigel: Will do.
Charter/Process crossover
Nigel: Atsushi added this to the agenda.
… The new Process has come into operation, Process 2021.
… It allows for a more formal process for managing Registries.
… We do have some Registries.
… Question: Do we want to migrate our Registries to the new
process?
… Is that the right question?
Atsushi: Philippe will send that question to Chairs early next
week.
… We could include it in Other Deliverables section. The text
is already quite wide.
Cyril: Sorry, I'm not clear on the actions needed to adopt
TTAL.
… I can propose changes to the Charter wording and the
Requirements document.
… Is that all? We could schedule a meeting where I present this
work.
Nigel: That's a good idea.
Cyril: I'm going to give a presentation to the EBU Timed Text
Group, so if we can do it
… in 1st meeting December would be good if it's not too late
for the Charter.
Nigel: We can widen the Charter now and then adopt the work in
WG calls later.
Cyril: Thank you [leaves the call]
Nigel: Back onto Registries, I propose that we say in Other
deliverables that the WG will consider migrating Registries.
… Again, to give us the freedom to make that change later.
… How does that sound?
Atsushi: I think that works.
Andreas: Yes, sounds good
Nigel: Thanks.
Atsushi: Just a reminder to Chairs please take a look at the
message I sent earlier in the week.
… There are some minor things we need to change.
Nigel: Okay, I don't think I noticed that, let me check.
… Oh I see, yes, I have it. Okay, I will respond.
… I think we need to get the Charter finished quite soon to
meet the timeline?
Atsushi: HR is running - Accessibility completed and i18n will
complete on Tuesday so I hope we can close those reviews
… and meet the process in a timely manner.
… We need to finish before going to W3M and have at least 2
more weeks.
Nigel: Am I right in thinking we need to be finished by end of
November?
Atsushi: We may be already a bit late for that.
Nigel: I mean before going to W3M
Atsushi: And AC review.
… AC review should be 4 or 6 weeks.
… It's already a bit late.
Nigel: I think we should make progress as fast as possible and
then if we need 1 month extension on the current charter that
is
… usually granted easily.
Atsushi: Yes, 1 month or 3 month is usually fine.
Nigel: Yes, that's what I understand. Okay.
Meeting close
Nigel: Thanks everyone, let's adjourn for today. [adjourns
meeting]
Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by
[16]scribe.perl version 159 (Fri Nov 5 17:37:14 2021 UTC).
[16] https://w3c.github.io/scribe2/scribedoc.html
----------------------------
http://www.bbc.co.uk
This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and may contain personal views which are not the views of the BBC unless specifically stated.
If you have received it in error, please delete it from your system.
Do not use, copy or disclose the information in any way nor act in reliance on it and notify the sender immediately.
Please note that the BBC monitors e-mails sent or received.
Further communication will signify your consent to this.
---------------------
Received on Thursday, 11 November 2021 17:46:56 UTC