- From: Nigel Megitt <nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk>
- Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2022 16:27:37 +0000
- To: "public-tt@w3.org" <public-tt@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <2C6A6FFA-2784-4ADB-A432-30E91C848F28@bbc.co.uk>
Thanks all for attending today’s TTWG meeting. Minutes can be found in HTML format at https://www.w3.org/2022/06/09-tt-minutes.html
In text format:
[1]W3C
[1] https://www.w3.org/
Timed Text Working Group Teleconference
09 June 2022
[2]Previous meeting. [3]Agenda. [4]IRC log.
[2] https://www.w3.org/2022/05/12-tt-minutes.html
[3] https://github.com/w3c/ttwg/issues/219
[4] https://www.w3.org/2022/06/09-tt-irc
Attendees
Present
Andreas, Atsushi, Cyril, Gary, Nigel, Pierre
Regrets
-
Chair
Gary, Nigel
Scribe
nigel
Contents
1. [5]This meeting
2. [6]DAPT
3. [7]Rechartering status update
4. [8]TPAC Planning
5. [9]Meeting Close
Meeting minutes
This meeting
Nigel: Today we have DAPT, Rechartering, and I kept the low
latency and controls issue on the agenda,
… in case there is anything to discuss there.
… Any other business?
Gary: TPAC planning?
Nigel: Yes, we should do that, since there's been some
communication since I put the agenda out.
… Any more?
Nothing more
DAPT
Nigel: Thanks Cyril for opening a PR with the first draft.
… Before we get there, just a reminder that we published the
DAPT-REQs draft WG Note
… and I also wrote a blog post about it.
[10]DAPT REQs WG Note
[10] https://www.w3.org/TR/dapt-reqs/
[11]Blog post
[11] https://www.w3.org/blog/2022/05/towards-a-dubbing-and-audio-description-exchange-format/
Nigel: There has been some response to those that I haven't got
around to dealing with yet.
… Cyril, in the last hour I approved the pull request so we can
get started.
Cyril: Thank you, sorry I couldn't do it before your break!
Nigel: That's okay!
Cyril: We should treat it as a starting point. I'm happy to
receive feedback.
… It doesn't really have AD in it yet, I was counting on you to
add that bit Nigel.
Nigel: OK!
Cyril: I would encourage two types of review.
… First the data model, terminology, fit against the
requirements
… (or fix the requirements if they're incomplete)
… And then a second pass to agree the mapping to the TTML
syntax.
… Until the model is frozen it may not be that useful to talk
about the syntax.
… That's my suggestion.
Nigel: I agree about the data model and terminology - in the
way of these things,
… the spec defines a sort of jargon, and it may be
non-intuitive to some readers in the web context.
… For example "event" might suggest javascript to some readers.
Cyril: Anything else on this?
Nigel: Suggest merging the pull request so we can publish it on
GitHub Pages.
Cyril: I'll do that later today.
Nigel: I can't remember if we sorted publication on gh-pages or
not, but I can do that if need be.
… Any more on this from anyone?
Nothing more
Rechartering status update
Nigel: We had a number of pull requests open for ages on the
draft charter, with approvals.
… Yesterday I just merged them.
… The one remaining is:
[12]Reintroduce the 'at least two independent implementations'
SHOULD from the previous version of the charter.
w3c/charter-timed-text#81
[12] https://github.com/w3c/charter-timed-text/pull/81
Nigel: I've forgotten some of the details but I think Apple
said they'd think about other alternative
… proposals.
Gary: Yes they said they would.
Nigel: Now we've had chance to consider this the question to
ask ourselves is if we can live with Apple's
… proposal or if it is so against our changes that we can't
accept it.
Cyril: At least make the terms consistent in advancing to PR or
advancing beyond CR.
Nigel: They're the same thing, just described differently.
Cyril: If we don't meet this SHOULD then we would have to
justify it?
Nigel: Yes
Gary: I think we would likely need to do it anyway.
… Apple's position is they would prefer that SHOULD be a MUST.
Pierre: I think that leaving that second paragraph in just
postpones the discussion.
… The root of what's happening here is that folks are trying to
impose in Charters things that
… are not imposed in the Process.
… We can jump around this but we're delaying the discussion.
Gary: That is what is happening because it's easier to do it
that way, for better or worse.
Pierre: It's usually easier to deal with these things up-front.
… Vivid memories of EME where this didn't help.
… If we don't do it now we'll have it again very soon.
Gary: We did ask Apple to restart the Process level
discussions.
Pierre: For the record, I've been trying to have discussions
with Apple about this and they have not been responsive.
Nigel: As Gary says, the intent is to roll it into Charters
first, because they consider it to be
… better to have experience in Charters first before changing
the Process.
Pierre: For the HRM I don't think we are likely to see a second
implementation.
Nigel: I think they would argue that in that case it ought not
to be a web standard.
Pierre: I don't understand the goal.
Gary: Their goal is to demonstrate interop so that two
independent readers of the spec generate the same
… outcome from their implementations.
Pierre: I would equally claim, as suggested by Nigel a while
back, that have two folks, one independently
… creating content and another creating an implementation,
agree on the expected result, then
… that is an equally legitimate test.
Cyril: You could claim that there's an implementation behind
the content creation so you would claim
… there are two implementations.
Pierre: Exactly. I think one creates content and one processes
it is a fine test.
… I am concerned that using this to gauge industry interest
would be a terrible tool.
Gary: I don't think it's that.
… They consider that just creating content isn't good enough.
Pierre: I see no factual basis for why this is not a good way
to test the interpretation of a spec.
Gary: One potential issue is that somebody could be writing it
against the HRM as opposed to against the spec.
… They could be testing their content against the
implementation.
Pierre: Sure, and someone could fork an implementation, tweak
it, and call it theirs!
Nigel: This comes down to whether or not the Chairs could tell
a story to exit CR to the Director
… based on this Charter and succeed.
… By the way, another option is to keep their PR wording and
modify our additional wording to clarify the intent.
… For example it may be that we've slipped into TTWG jargon
about implementation types and the AC
… does not generally share the same understanding of our
terminology.
Gary: Yes, it could be that changing "content" to "content
creating implementation" would help.
… The other thing is how many times can we extend the Charter
before they say No?!
Pierre: The other option is to stay at CR forever. I don't
think that's a good solution.
Gary: Agree that's not a good solution.
Nigel: Also agree, but note that Apple's view was that due to
other changes e.g. to patent policy,
… being at CR permanently is a lot safer than it used to be.
… I quite strongly feel that staying at CR forever is a really
bad message to send, particularly if it becomes
… a widespread practice across W3C.
Cyril: Apologies, have to leave the call.
Nigel: Practical choices:
… 1. Reject the PR
… 2. Ask Apple for other alternatives
… 3. Accept the PR
Gary: We can ask Apple for alternatives regardless.
Nigel: If we accept the PR they won't generate alternatives.
Atsushi: For option 1, our extension of the current charter is
until the end of June.
… Accepting 1 will result in FO Council, and I assume that we
proceed with the current
… checklist. I can't believe that FO will be the result to meet
with our desire.
… For option 3 it is simpler, we can just recharter as soon as
possible.
Gary: My thought is we ask Apple for alternatives and then
before the Charter expires,
… we could then potentially accept the PR and recharter, and
push Apple to restart the Process discussions.
Nigel: Listening to the discussion I think my conclusion is we
do want to assess other alternatives,
… and the lack of strong statements in favour or against means
we are all sitting on the fence.
Atsushi: We should push Process CG and Apple to consider these
implementation related items within
… the Process.
Nigel: I have raised issues before and it is a matter of
reinvigorating discussion on those issues.
Atsushi: I should rephrase: I would like Chairs to push issues
into Process CG as soon as possible.
… Are they open already?
Gary: There are several
Nigel: Yes we do
Atsushi: Ah, sorry for that.
github: [13]https://github.com/w3c/charter-timed-text/pull/81
[13] https://github.com/w3c/charter-timed-text/pull/81
SUMMARY: Group discussed on call today. Ambivalent towards PR,
would like Apple to generate other alternative suggestions.
TPAC Planning
Nigel: Before he left the call Cyril mentioned that he is still
willing to attend TPAC in person if we go ahead.
Gary: We requested time for Thursday and Friday but we don't
have any set plans or times currently.
… I completed the Chair's WBS survey
Nigel: Thank you for that.
Gary: We have a draft schedule that we have until the 14th to
adjust.
… (Tuesday)
Nigel: I'm tempted to suggest that we meet on the two mornings
of Thursday and Friday
Gary: Good for Andreas joining remotely.
… Also Chris Needham asked if we want to meet jointly on
Thursday morning.
Andreas: Thanks Gary, I will be unlikely to be there in person,
so daytime or early evening Europe time would be best for me to
join remotely.
Nigel: Gary, should you and I come up with some time proposals
offline to give us reasonable
… meeting duration to cover our agenda?
Gary: Yes, sounds good.
Nigel: Should we say yes for a joint meeting with MEIG?
… I would like to say yes because I think it might be a good
place to begin discussing the challenges
… with the video HTML element.
Gary: Yes, would we want the Media WG there too?
Nigel: Yes possibly.
… I'll discuss that with Chris. We may also have other agenda
items of course.
Nigel: Anything else for TPAC?
Nothing for now
Meeting Close
Nigel: [checks that there's nothing to discuss on the remaining
agenda items]
… Thanks everyone, let's adjourn a few minutes early today.
[adjourns meeting]
Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by
[14]scribe.perl version 185 (Thu Dec 2 18:51:55 2021 UTC).
[14] 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, 9 June 2022 16:27:54 UTC