{Minutes} TTWG Meeting 2020-02-03

Thanks all for attending today’s TTWG meeting. Minutes can be found in HTML format at https://www.w3.org/2022/02/03-tt-minutes.html


In text format:

   [1]W3C

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


                Timed Text Working Group Teleconference

03 February 2022

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

      [2] https://www.w3.org/2022/01/20-tt-minutes.html

      [3] https://github.com/w3c/ttwg/issues/209

      [4] https://www.w3.org/2022/02/03-tt-irc


Attendees

   Present
          Andreas, Atsushi, Cyril, Gary, Nigel, Philippe, Pierre

   Regrets
          -

   Chair
          Gary, Nigel

   Scribe
          cyril, nigel

Contents

    1. [5]This meeting
    2. [6]IMSC HRM
         1. [7]Status on HR and WR
         2. [8]HR Issues
    3. [9]Rechartering status update
    4. [10]Meeting close

Meeting minutes

  This meeting

   Nigel: Today we have IMSC HRM - Wide Review comms, and HR
   issues if there are any to discuss
   … And Rechartering status.
   … Any other business?

   Atsushi: I believe Philippe will join for the charter
   discussion.

   Nigel: Thanks

   Cyril: We could talk about Dubbing and AD requirements

   Nigel: OK that'll be an AOB topic

  IMSC HRM

    Status on HR and WR

   Nigel: We completed w3c/imsc-hrm#12 and associated
   separated-out issues.
   … I think we are almost ready with the text to send to ask for
   Wide Review, and the recipients.
   … I sent an email out to the member reflector before the call.
   … I was a bit blunt but maybe we can discuss the point about
   mentioning an implementation, Andreas.

   Andreas: I think that mentioning the validator would help
   reviewers.

   Pierre: I see no harm in mentioning it.
   … Reviewing the Privacy folks' comments, a pointer to an
   implementation might
   … help people to understand what it does.
   … Just pointing to it as an example might help people
   understand what the spec is and how it works.

   Nigel: It's a good point that we got strong feedback asking to
   explain what IMSC-HRM is and what would run it.

   Pierre: We can write stuff but an implementation speaks a
   thousand words.

   Andreas: This is exactly what I was thinking.

   Pierre: Instead of writing a long intro that won't be read,
   it's easy to click a link and see how it works.
   … There's no rendering, just validation.

   Nigel: Good points. The HR folk are only going to review the
   spec, not the implementation,
   … so we will have to write some introductory matter to resolve
   their questions.

   Pierre: Hopefully we will discuss the HR issues this call.

   Nigel: I think there's a small tweak to the WR text to explain
   that the HRM specifies how a validator must work,
   … and doesn't in itself do anything.

   Pierre: Let's not make it more complicated.

   Nigel: Summary: I need to do a small amount of editing to match
   what we just discussed.
   … But do we need to make any spec changes before we request
   wide review and send this out?

    HR Issues

   [11]IMSC-HRM issues

     [11] https://github.com/w3c/imsc-hrm/issues


   Nigel: There's a common theme of needing better
   introductory/explanatory text.
   … I don't think #30 is a real issue, just needs explaining.

   Pierre: Agree, #30 doesn't seem to be an issue.

   Nigel: OK, so I think the question is Do we need to do the
   explanatory informative text changes before requesting WR
   … or do we send as is and add text to the message?

   Pierre: I don't think we need to make those changes before
   sending out - the expected recipient will already know IMSC.

   Nigel: OK, any other thoughts?
   … I'm hearing nothing, so will go ahead with the spec as is.
   … The other question for WR is the timeline, how long do we
   give for responses?
   … I think 6 weeks is a practical minimum, 8 might be easier for
   the recipients. Any thoughts?

   Pierre: I'd err on the side of longer, so .. 8 seems fine.

   Nigel: Any more bids?
   …
   … I think we're there, thank you.
   … Anyone want to raise any of the issues?

   Pierre: I'm not super excited by writing an introduction but..
   Do you feel it's necessary? Feels like it is.
   … I'd like feedback on that before I spend time doing it. Is it
   needed, what should it contain?

   Nigel: Yes, I think it is needed, and it doesn't need a lot.

   Pierre: Maybe a picture that shows where it fits in the overall
   chain?

   Nigel: That would be good, yes.
   … I was also thinking that the feedback says the implementation
   model is unclear.
   … That can easily be addressed by saying, even in the Abstract,
   that the specification defines behaviour
   … of a validating processor.

   Pierre: Thanks, I can write that up.

   Nigel: I think this is the key thing that threw the reviewers.

   Andreas: I'm not sure if this is the right time, but there is
   still this issue we started, #12, for preparing the HR.
   … There's a comment about how much customisation is in scope of
   the HRM
   … and if we should add an informative note about it.
   … There were responses from Nigel and Pierre.
   … It would be good to have a brief conversation about it.

   Pierre: I think that got lost because it wasn't opened as a
   separate issue. I missed that when I was reviewing the issues.

   Andreas: Sorry, I proposed it but you're right I will do that.

   Pierre: I was not ignoring it, it just fell off my radar.
   … If you can open a separate issue and we can address it, that
   would be awesome.

   Andreas: Nonetheless we can have a discussion about it.
   … The question in general is if customisation of an IMSC
   document when it is rendered should be taken into
   … consideration by an author. Should the author, when creating
   the document, knowing certain values for styling and
   customisation,
   … test the document against the HRM with those customisation
   values?
   … There are two comments where Nigel and Pierre agree that
   customisation is not in scope of the HRM.
   … But then I think Nigel's comment that in general an
  informative note would be possible or may help, but
   … you do not agree that it is a problem on the authoring side
   but actually on the side of the implementer.
   … The implementer should make sure that every document would
   pass the HRM together with the customisation options.

   Nigel: Slight tweak - I would say the implementer has to make
   sure that every document that passes the HRM plays successfully
   … even if customisation options are applied.
   … The goal is to ensure a good audience experience that matches
   the authorial intent.
   … The HRM only checks documents as supplied.

   Andreas: How can an implementer test that their player works
   with customisations? They need to know what inputs to accept.

   Pierre: I would generate maximally complex documents and verify
   that my software works with each of the customisation options.

   Andreas: As Nigel said, I had the same idea and that makes
   total sense, how an implementer would be able to test it.
   … I think that is a good way to do it.
   … A separate issue we could think about is offering those kinds
   of test documents.
   … My question is maybe answered already.
   … If you are in a closed system like the BBC and iPlayer or
   whatever, and they offer customisation options, the
   … documents are authored in the same environment that also
   decides on the customisation options.
   … There's a close link between them.
   … Thinking about it, it makes more sense that the implementer
   ensures that the documents present than that the author does
   it.

   Pierre: The maximally complex documents are orthogonal to
   customisation options because they
   … deal with values that are known before rendering.
   … Anyone can generate a set of maximally complex documents
   independently of the customisation options they offer.
   … We could offer those documents.
   … We could consider that, or at least an example.

   Nigel: We will have to generate tests at some point.
   … By the way, the BBC's iPlayer allows text size customisation
   but it only ever makes text smaller, so it wouldn't
   … cause more complexity under the HRM!

   Pierre: The world is far from agreeing on customisation options
   right now.
   … Andreas, please could you open an issue?

   Andreas: Yes I will do it.

   Nigel: Thank you.

  Rechartering status update

   Philippe: The Charter has been reviewed by W3M.
   … When I was talking with Atsushi there was some confusion.
   … Then early last week I went through the comments with him.
   … One of the things that is problematic in the proposed charter
   is related to success criteria.
   … They are a bit loosey-goosey.
   … Reminder:

   <plh> [12]https://w3c.github.io/charter-timed-text/


     [12] https://w3c.github.io/charter-timed-text/


   Philippe: The problem that we have is that it is not clear if
   we can expect for each normative feature that
   … we will have at least two independent implementations.

   Nigel: Aha, let's do this conversation!

   Philippe: Section 3.1

   <plh> In order to advance to Proposed Recommendation, each
   normative specification is expected to have at least two
   independent implementations of every feature defined in the
   specification.

   Nigel: Two independent implementations is not a Process
   requirement, it's on the list of questions the Director will
   ask.

   Philippe: That is correct, but if they do not exist then the
   Director will ask for a good rationale.

   nigel: we totally understood that when we wrote this
   … this has caused some difficulties in the past
   … to push something that seemed reasonable to us through the
   process
   … part of what we did knowingly here when we wrote it in the
   charter
   … we thought that if it made sense for the AC then the Director
   should be ok with it

   plh: the sentence that I pasted, can we add that at the
   beginning of the section?

   nigel: no
   … we have described that interpretation of that sentence and
   … the process is confusing as to what is "2 independent
   implementations"
   … and with the way we wrote it, it may be that we'll have 2
   implementations

   plh: but it may not and that's the problem

   nigel: if independently by 2 separate processes, valid content
   is created that matches the specifications
   … and an implementation matches the specification
   … that is demonstrating common understanding of the
   specification

   plh: I disagree
   … we don't test HTML by saying there is a producer and consumer
   … and that is good enough
   … I don't claim HTML is tested for everything
   … but I think this section is setting the bar too low
   … we are having debates with the AC to starting REC track when
   there are not 2 independent commitments to implement
   … if you don't want to add the sentence, W3M will discuss but
   they may not agree

   nigel: maybe we need to have the conversation with them

   pal: let's have that discussion
   … the fundamental issue is that we are imposing requirements on
   this group that are not in the process
   … and if it's true that the only acceptable criteria for W3C is
   2 independentimplementations, that should be in the process
   … because it's not there right now
   … I'll be happy to write up on this

   nigel: I think it's also worth noting that there is background
   here
   … I raised it in the process before, asking to define it more
   precisely
   … and at every stage, there has been push back
   … so it's up to the group to decide and the AC to review
   … if it's W3M pushing it, I do question if it's the role of W3M

   plh: the Director is delegating the submission of Charters to
   AC to W3M
   … W3M is not acting in a vaccum

   pal: do you need a 2nd implementation when it's an open source
   one
   … back in the days, 2 closed-source implementations was good

   plh: the draft doesn't mention open source

   nigel: it does, it's very explicit in the last sentence of §3.1

   plh: it does not say all features will be covered by that?

   nigel: is this about all features?

   plh: the WOFF2 spec was approved as REC and there was a single
   implementation of it because open source and used by every one

   nigel: it seems that the objection has narrowed down

   plh: we always have trouble to define appropriate
   implementation experience
   … if you tell me there is going to be a common open source
   implementation used by every one
   … that's a different story
   … just because Blink implements a feature and is open source
   does not mean it's sufficient
   … the virtue of being open source is not enough
   … if it's a reference implementation and used by everyone
   … that's better, closer to WOFF2

   pal: I think we should leave it to what the process says
   … but in this case, if it helps to mention that there will be a
   common open source implementation

   nigel: does it have to be a reference implementation?

   plh: open source is enough if used by everybody

   cyril: it's vague to me

   plh: on purpose, we don't want to constrain the groups too much
   … the starting point is 2 independent implementations
   … but it can be modified
   … I can only define it by examples
   … for example WOFF2

   nigel: pal is suggesting we meet with W3M

   nigel: gkatsev any thoughts?

   gkatsev: nothing to add

   gkatsev: I agree with you nigel

   nigel: I'll happily have the conversation with W3M
   … what's the minimum changes to make W3M happy

   plh: I will have the conversation, I understand better the
   story
   … there is going to be one implementation that everybody will
   use
   … I will talk to Ralph to see what changes he suggests
   … I can give you an example of a spec blocked despite having
   many implementations

   nigel: was there anything else?

   plh: the media wg is not listed in the W3C groups? should it be
   a dependency?

   nigel: good point, we can add that easily

  Meeting close

   Nigel: Thanks everyone, we're slightly over time. [adjourns
   meeting]


    Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by
    [13]scribe.perl version 185 (Thu Dec 2 18:51:55 2021 UTC).

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

Received on Thursday, 3 February 2022 17:53:16 UTC