{Minutes} TTWG Meeting 2022-07-21

Thanks all for attending today’s TTWG teleconference. Minutes can be found in HTML format at https://www.w3.org/2022/07/21-tt-minutes.html


In text format:

   [1]W3C

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


                Timed Text Working Group Teleconference

21 July 2022

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

      [2] https://www.w3.org/2022/06/23-tt-minutes.html

      [3] https://github.com/w3c/ttwg/issues/222

     [4] https://www.w3.org/2022/07/21-tt-irc


Attendees

   Present
          Andreas, atsushi, Nigel, Philippe, Xabier

   Regrets
          Cyril, Gary

   Chair
          Nigel

   Scribe
          nigel

Contents

    1. [5]This meeting
    2. [6]Rechartering
    3. [7]TPAC update
    4. [8]DAPT
         1. [9]Is the basis for DAPT IMSC 1.1 or is it an
            independent spec with common provisions? w3c/dapt#5
         2. [10]DAPT-REQs
    5. [11]Timed Text in Low Latency Streaming applications
    6. [12]AOB
    7. [13]Meeting close

Meeting minutes

  This meeting

   Nigel: TPAC update, DAPT, Rechartering, and possibly a couple
   of issues.

   Philippe: Rechartering would be good first

   Nigel: AOB, or anything to make sure we cover?

   <atsushi> (will join shortly after i18n call ends)

   group: No

  Rechartering

   Nigel: I believe we're currently out of Charter, the extension
   has expired I think

   Philippe: That could be fixed, but to do that, let me check my
   board...
   … Yes it expired end of June, so you can't publish at the
   moment.
   … So we need an extension, as the minimum bar.
   … How long? Where are you guys with the FO on the AC review?
   Are you done with your conversations?
   … Did you resolve your FOs?

   Nigel: We resolved the FO with Google, and accepted the request
   from Adobe, but we have

   <plh> [14]Director's dashboard

     [14] https://www.w3.org/Member/wiki/DirectorFOdashboard#Timed_Text_Working_Group_charter


   Nigel: not resolved the FO with Apple.

   Philippe: There was also an FO from Mozilla that arrived late,
   and mainly concurred with Apple.
   … If you didn't resolve with Apple then most likely you didn't
   resolve with Mozilla.

   Nigel: I don't agree:
   … 1. It looked like Google's and Apple's objections were almost
   the same, but we resolved Google's and that
   … did not satisfy Apple.
   … 2. We haven't talked to Mozilla because their FO was out of
   the review period.
   … Nevertheless I assume it is reasonable to conclude that if we
   were to satisfy Google's and Apple's objection
   … then it's very unlikely that Mozilla would continue to
   object.

   Philippe: Alright. At the minimum you have the Apple FO.

   Nigel: Apple had an action from a while back to generate some
   alternative proposals.
   … I emailed them on 2022-07-19 to ask for progress, but they
   haven't got back to us.
   … We have one strong view that we shouldn't accept Apple's
   on-the-table proposal to reinstate
   … old "should" wording, because it postpones an important
   discussion until CR exit and
   … puts process discussions into the charter domain.

   Philippe: It doesn't hurt you to ask the Director because it is
   going to take some time.
   … I would recommend that you go to the Director now, because
   you haven't got consensus.

   Nigel: Note that Gary isn't on the call.

   Andreas: Last time we discussed this issue there was a
   compromise idea about the
   … number of implementations that are needed, which is the
   controversial part,
   … and to accept Apple's request but make an explicit exception
   for IMSC-HRM which has the most
   … concerns in the group.
   … Where did we get to with that?

   Nigel: I haven't done anything with that, but from discussions,
   my understanding is that it won't
   … satisfy Apple, who will likely respond that it simply
   shouldn't be on the Rec track if that is the case.
   … We don't know if it would satisfy Apple but it seems
   unlikely, so I'm not sure it gets us anywhere.

   Philippe: Fine for you to discuss with Gary. If you want to
   publish you'll need an extension.

   Nigel: Yes please, otherwise we can't merge PRs on e.g. DAPT

   Philippe: 3 or 6 months?

   Nigel: 6 months - given how long this is taking

   Philippe: OK, 6 months. The Director may pick it up sooner if
   this isn't resolved yet.
   … Atsushi, can you agenda+ w3m to request a 6 month extension.

   Atsushi: Yes, and request Director/FO Council?

   Philippe: Director first, who makes the call, but right now,
   request extension 6 months.
   … Nigel, if you manage to talk with Gary and agree to bring to
   the Director, let me know any time.

   Nigel: Will do.

   Philippe: I've got to go, thank you, bye everyone.

   [Philippe leaves]

  TPAC update

   Nigel: TPAC registration is open and for those to whom it
   applies there's an early bird discount
   … for early registrations, so please do register even if you
   only want to attend remotely.
   … There's also an inclusion fund that I emailed details of, in
   case that's relevant to anyone.

   [15]TPAC registration form

     [15] https://www.w3.org/register/tpac2022/form


   Nigel: I put details of the planned agendas in the agenda for
   this meeting:
   … Thursday 8:00-10:00 TTWG & MEIG joint meeting
   … Thursday 10:30-12:30 TTWG
   … Friday 8:00-13:30 TTWG & Media WG joint meeting
   … and agendas so far:
   …
   … Media WG:
   … Behaviour with controls
   … Video element updates around shadow DOM and containing
   content
   …
   … MEIG:
   … Audio Description and Dubbing
   … Subtitle document rendering complexity
   …
   … Any other topics for us or for joint meetings, let me and
   Gary know, or speak up now?
   … By the way, I will be there in person, all being well.

  DAPT

   Nigel: We have a good set of issues open, which I hoped we
   could cover today,
   … but I'm not sure we can without Cyril, for the time being.
   … One thing he did say to me, in relation to the IMSC 1.1
   basis, is that he agreed with my comment.

    Is the basis for DAPT IMSC 1.1 or is it an independent spec with
    common provisions? w3c/dapt#5

   github: [16]https://github.com/w3c/dapt/issues/5


     [16] https://github.com/w3c/dapt/issues/5


   Nigel: I pointed out that IMSC has constraints that prevent it
   being extended with TTML2 features
   … not listed, so we cannot make DAPT formally based on IMSC, or
   extended from it.
   … Any extra features would make it non-conformant with IMSC.
   … Cyril said he agreed with this point.
   … I think the implication is we need to change that wording, so
   I'll look at taking that on.

   Andreas: When I saw this comment, I also wondered about the
   constraints in IMSC.
   … You may be right in terms of adding explicit other TTML
   features,
   … but it's fine to add other vocabulary, so it would not be
   non-conformant.
   … But to require IMSC to be a proper subset, maybe it needs
   some changes.

   Nigel: That's my understanding too.

    DAPT-REQs

   Nigel: I've not had any feedback about the DAPT-REQs yet, but I
   have had contact from
   … one implementer who is very interested and I've asked if they
   have any specific requirements changes.

  Timed Text in Low Latency Streaming applications

   Andreas: I think we need Mike Dolan on the call to discuss the
   requirements and how to proceed.

   Nigel: Agreed.

  AOB

   Nigel: Just want to mention that the BBC Subtitle Guidelines
   have been moved, yesterday.

   [17]New location for the BBC Subtitle Guidelines

     [17] https://www.bbc.co.uk/accessibility/forproducts/guides/subtitles/


   Nigel: They're also even more accessible than they were before.
   … Old links will redirect into the same place in the document
   they went to before.

  Meeting close

   Nigel: Thanks everyone, next call is scheduled for 4th August,
   regrets from me for then.
   … [adjourns meeting]


    Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by
    [18]scribe.perl version 192 (Tue Jun 28 16:55:30 2022 UTC).

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