{Minutes} TTWG Meeting 2022-02-17

Thanks all for attending today’s TTWG meeting. Minutes can be found in HTML format at https://www.w3.org/2022/02/17-tt-minutes.html


Two things worth mentioning:

  1.  Cyril (Netflix) and Nigel (BBC) are working on a combined requirements document, and specification, for both Audio Description and Dubbing. Provisionally to be titled “DAPT” for Dubbing and Audio description Profiles of TTML2 – please do say if you can see any issues with that name, or have a great idea for an even better name.
  2.  Concern has been raised in the AC about use of the Document License, which all our specifications currently use; the proponent is in favour of strongly pushing or even requiring groups to use the more permissive Software and Document License. In our current Charter we have the choice on a per-spec basis. Please do read this section of the minutes and let us know if you have any views on this issue.

Those minutes in text format:

   [1]W3C

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


                Timed Text Working Group Teleconference

17 February 2022

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

      [2] https://www.w3.org/2022/02/03-tt-minutes.html

      [3] https://github.com/w3c/ttwg/issues/210

      [4] https://www.w3.org/2022/02/17-tt-irc


Attendees

   Present
          Andreas, Atsushi, Cyril, Gary, Nigel, Xabier

   Regrets
          Pierre

   Chair
          Gary, Nigel

   Scribe
          nigel

Contents

    1. [5]This meeting
    2. [6]IMSC HRM Wide Review
    3. [7]Dubbing and AD requirements
    4. [8]Rechartering status update
    5. [9]Meeting close

Meeting minutes

  This meeting

   Nigel: Today, quick update on IMSC HRM Wide Review
   … then Rechartering status update, and

   Nigel: Dubbing and AD requirements.
   … Is there any other business or topic to make sure we cover?

   [no other business]

   <calvaris> Hi, I'm Xabier Rodríguez (aka calvaris), from
   Igalia. I work on the WebKit GStreamer ports

   Nigel: Xabier, welcome, I think this is your first call, great
   to have you here with us.
   … When you get your membership of the group confirmed, please
   send an email to member-tt@w3.org with
   … a quick introduction just so we can verify that everything is
   set up properly.
   … And welcome to Igalia too.

  IMSC HRM Wide Review

   Nigel: Quick update: we're happy with the wide review comms
   wording,
   … but since we received quite strong feedback about the way the
   spec is introduced
   … and the purpose of it seems to need better explanation,

   <atsushi_> (sorry for late cut in, but please tell your AC rep
   for approval.. Igalia itself is already in this TTWG as
   organization.)

   Nigel: I wasn't happy to send the WR comms out before we have
   made some editorial improvements
   … to help address those comments.
   … Otherwise, my prediction is that we will get similar
   mis-comprehension from others, and that would not be helpful.
   … That's why Pierre is working on updates rather than being
   here!
   … Any questions or thoughts on that?

   [no questions]

   <atsushi_> +1 for updates before sending wide review requests

  Dubbing and AD requirements

   Nigel: This is actually related to the Charter in that it
   affects our plan of work.
   … Cyril and I have been talking offline and agreed to work
   together on a single TTML2 profile for both AD and Dubbing.
   … I sent a message to the AD Community Group, which is at
   [10]https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/

   public-audio-description/2022Feb/0000.html
   … Just to keep them in the loop and see if there were any
   comments or feedback.

     [10] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-audio-description/2022Feb/0000.html


   Cyril: [shares screen]
   … This is a merge of the AD profile requirements and the
   Dubbing workflow requirements
   … from the work that Netflix has been doing.
   … The current title is Requirements for the Movie Translation
   Dubbing and Audio description profile of TTML2 (MTDA).
   … I had some feedback that it's too long!

   Nigel: We can change it.

   Cyril: It's capturing the requirements.
   … The first thing we did is come up with a combined workflow.
   … The AD CG came up with a workflow diagram.
   … The Netflix TTAL blog post had another diagram,
   … so we came up with a combined diagram.
   … It starts with AV content.
   … Then identify times, for dubbing, dialog times, for AD, the
   gaps where there are opportunities.
   … Step 2 is authoring of text, in one case describing the
   images for AD,
   … in the other, producing the dubbing text by transcribing,
   then translating, then adjusting.
   … Step 3 is audio rendering, by recording an actor or
   synthesising.
   … Step 4 is mixing the audio.
   … Step 5 is editing the script to match the performance.
   … What's in scope is the green boxes.
   … Then just like the AD profile, after the workflow there's a
   description of the steps and the requirements
   … associated with each step.
   … We followed the same approach.
   … Then we have the requirements.
   … Nigel and I are still going through that, then we will
   produce a document. Is it a Note?

   Nigel: Yes, the requirements can be a WG Note.

   Cyril: Any other question?

   Andreas: It looks very good, and good to see the two activities
   align, as it should be.
   … Nigel, the AD work would then end up in this new
   specification or profile, right?
   … And there will not be a separate document?

   Nigel: Yes, that's the intention.
   … I think this is a good move because it increases the target
   community of users,
   … and that I think makes it more likely to get more
   implementations.
   … They're so close that I feel it's obvious that they should be
   together. I may be proven wrong in the future!

   Andreas: Do you have a rough feeling about what you want in
   terms of the timeline
   … for a FPWD of the specification document as opposed to the
   requirements.

   Cyril: I expect the requirements to be done in 2-3 weeks, and I
   don't expect any issues.
   … We can always refine them afterwards.
   … For the spec, it's a good question. I think the FPWD could
   come pretty early, maybe within 2 months from now?

   Nigel: Yes, I agree, mid-May would be my hopeful cut-off, since
   I have 3 weeks vacation then!
   … I think most of the substantive parts of the spec will be
   pulled from TTML2 features, so not too difficult.
   … The thing that will take some thought and consideration is
   where we source the metadata vocabulary
   … to support the workflow parts.
   … In terms of actions, I think we need a repo per document,
   … so one for the requirements and one for the spec.

   Cyril: If we remove Movie Translation then we get DAPT for
   Dubbing and Audio description Profile of TTML2.

   Nigel: Googling that...
   … Just Dual anti-platelet therapy. I think that's sufficiently
   different.
   … Happy to go with that. Any other thoughts about that?

   PROPOSAL: Call this new thing DAPT for Dubbing and Audio
   description Profiles of TTML2

   Nigel: Any objections?

   Andreas: No, it's good

   Cyril: Maybe we should open it up to others not on the call -
   we don't have to decide it right now.

   Nigel: I'll highlight it in the minutes.
   … Atsushi can I ask you to make the repos when we know the name
   of it?

   Atsushi: OK, yes.

   Nigel: We'll leave ADPT as is and move the work to DAPT.
   … Any other questions or thoughts on this?

   <atsushi_> [11]filed a tracker

     [11] https://github.com/w3c/ttwg/issues/214


   Gary: ADPT could link to DAPT when that exists.

   Cyril: Yes we should add a link to ADPT saying the work is
   superseded by DAPT.

   Gary: Exactly, yes.

   Nigel: Good idea.
   … That will be one for me to do I suspect.
   … Thanks for that Cyril, everyone.

  Rechartering status update

   Atsushi: I will briefly show the update.
   … The draft charter is approved by W3M with two possible
   updates.
   … One is a choice because there's been some strong conversation
   about license within AC and W3M.
   … It might be better to switch to the Software and Document
   License.
   … The second is a request to add the ADPT work, or now, DAPT,
   as one potential item for profiles of TTML2.

   Nigel: It is already there - do you need an actual deliverable?

   Atsushi: There's no link there. It's just mentioned as an
   example application.

   Nigel: OK, so the action is to add a link?

   Atsushi: Yes, maybe DAPT is better?

   Nigel: Yes

   Atsushi: Let me add a link to DAPT for the newly created
   repository and maybe we should
   … prepare some basic content like a README before submitting to
   AC Review.

   Nigel: Yes

   Atsushi: Let me open a pull request.

   Nigel: OK, thank you.
   … We haven't got everybody here for this but we should spend a
   bit of time thinking about the license question.
   … I've been doing a bit of digging here.
   … There are two W3C licences that can be used for Rec track
   documents.
   … The first, the Document License, is what we have used
   everywhere up until now.
   … It is less permissive for spec text reuse than the Software
   and Document License.
   … The concern as I understand it is that there's some
   possibility of W3C changing as an entity and
   … the desire is to be able to ensure that somehow work can
   definitely continue on specifications published
   … with copyright assigned to W3C as it is now.
   … My understanding is that in the past we chose the less
   permissive licence because
   … it is one tool for preventing spec forking, which could
   obviously be quite disruptive.
   … However Philippe has in the past assured us that other
   mechanisms exist that he would prefer to use.
   … I think that's where the debate lies.
   … It's also worth saying that the W3C Counsel, Wendy, has
   stated that she thinks the risk associated
   … with the Document license is very low.
   … I'm not in favour of change but happy to represent the WG's
   views.

   Andreas: Did she say the risk is with the Document license not
   the software license?

   Nigel: Yes, that's right

   Andreas: And she said the risk is low?

   Nigel: Yes, I'm not sure what W3M's view is, this view that
   people should change to the software license
   … was put forward by Mark Nottingham, who is not in W3M.

   Andreas: And the spec forking concern: is that really a concern
   still, that someone would fork a TTML spec or one of the
   profiles?

   Nigel: By the way, also WebVTT, as it is now, which surprised
   me.

   Andreas: I thought it had the CG license still, Gary.

   Gary: I'm not sure.

   Nigel: It's not easy to find. The line above the Abstract tells
   you the "document use" restrictions, and when you click on that
   … in WebVTT you get to the Document License.

   Gary: The GitHub version is the CG license, but the w3.org one
   is the Document License.

   Nigel: Possibly there's a problem there!

   Gary: I think that might be fine.

   Nigel: I'm not clear on that. My expectation was it would be
   the Software and Document license, from my recollection.

   Gary: What does it take to change it? Do we just have to say
   that we're changing it?

   Nigel: Yes, we just make a resolution to do it.
   … We currently have a line in the Charter that says we can
   choose, per spec.

   Andreas: I'm not sure of the views of others, but in general I
   think the more permissive the better.
   … I don't see a risk with the more permissive license.
   … I think the Software and Document License is close to the
   other licenses that are used, so
   … it is easier to understand the rules from the start.

   Gary: Yes, it looks a lot like the MIT X11 license that is
   popular on the web.

   Nigel: The question for us now is do we change the Charter to
   specify the Software and Document License,
   … or keep it as is where we can choose on a per-specification
   basis.

   Andreas: Question about what Atsushi said - you said there have
   been discussions in W3M,
   … and that W3M thinks it is better to switch? Is it one person
   requesting that or more general?

   Atsushi: I believe the status is that some AC Reps are raising
   issues [when the Document license is used]
   … so we may have some formal objections to the Charter if we
   continue with the current text.

   <calvaris> I agree with Andreas, the more permissive, the
   better, in my humble opinion

   Nigel: Even though it does allow us to use either? It's
   untested.

   Atsushi: The discussion is to limit only to the Software and
   Document License, so if we point to other choices
   … then I suppose we may be subject to a Formal Objection.

   Nigel: I think we have raised awareness today, and I would like
   to know more about
   … what the Formal Objectors think about our current wording.

   Atsushi: Of course we can wait to hear what people will say.

   Nigel: Going back to the top, is the W3M approval conditional
   on the changes,
   … or are these changes just ones they would prefer to see?

   Atsushi: Closer to "conditional" I would think.
   … Of course there is also the point that we are asking about CR
   exit criteria,
   … which may also come up in AC review.

   Nigel: So W3M decided to leave that wording as is, after our
   discussion last call?

   Atsushi: Yes, W3M decided it can go ahead.
   … But maybe there is a risk of some potential conversation in
   AC review.

   Nigel: I think we welcome that because we know we're doing
   something different.

   Nigel: Any last points? We're nearly at time for today.

   Atsushi: I will prepare the repositories and raise a PR for
   adding to the draft charter, and then
   … prepare the AC review templates, possibly next Monday.

   Nigel: OK, thank you.

  Meeting close

   Nigel: We're at time, let's adjourn for today. Thank you
   everyone. [adjourns meeting]


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

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

Received on Thursday, 17 February 2022 17:40:52 UTC