- From: Nigel Megitt <nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk>
- Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2022 16:18:28 +0000
- To: TTWG <public-tt@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <AM0PR01MB62573E5F624B6527AE25DC70CA569@AM0PR01MB6257.eurprd01.prod.exchangelabs>
Thanks all for attending yesterdays TTWG meeting. Minutes can be found in HTML format at https://www.w3.org/2022/09/29-tt-minutes.html In text format: [1]W3C [1] https://www.w3.org/ Timed Text Working Group Teleconference 29 September 2022 [2]Previous meeting. [3]Agenda. [4]IRC log. [2] https://www.w3.org/2022/09/16-tt-minutes.html [3] https://github.com/w3c/ttwg/issues/228 [4] https://www.w3.org/2022/09/29-tt-irc Attendees Present Atsushi, Cyril, Gary, Nigel, Pierre Regrets - Chair Gary, Nigel Scribe nigel Contents 1. [5]This meeting 2. [6]TPAC follow-up 3. [7]DAPT issues 1. [8]Should we allow inheritance of xml:lang or require it to be set explicitly? w3c/dapt#62 2. [9]Do we want to allow inline styles? w3c/dapt#60 3. [10]Consider timing syntax constraints w3c/dapt#59 4. [11]Rechartering status update 5. [12]Rather than using ttm:role for script type, define new attribute w3c/dapt#54 6. [13]Meeting close Meeting minutes This meeting Gary: Using Teams for the TPAC meetings was good Nigel: We can switch! Gary: I wouldn't be opposed. Nigel: Let's do it. Gary: I can;t do the next one, in two weeks, it coincides with Demuxed. Nigel: Agenda for today is: follow-up opportunity from TPAC, DAPT issues, Rechartering status update Anything else for the agenda, or points to make sure we cover? Pierre: There's an outstanding pull request on IMSC-HRM I'd like to encourage folks to review it. Open 13 days ago, discussed in last meeting. I'd like to merge it unless there are significant concerns. Nigel: Thank you for the reminder. Sounds like there's nothing more to say on that. Pierre: I plan to merge it if there are no concerns - it addresses a real issue. Nigel: Thanks. TPAC follow-up Nigel: Nothing specific from me - I just want to give the opportunity to discuss if there's anything on your mind. DAPT issues [14]DAPT Issues marked for the agenda [14] https://github.com/w3c/dapt/issues?q=is:open+is:issue+label:agenda Should we allow inheritance of xml:lang or require it to be set explicitly? w3c/dapt#62 <Github> [15]https://github.com/w3c/dapt/issues/62 : Should we allow inheritance of xml:lang or require it to be set explicitly? [15] https://github.com/w3c/dapt/issues/62 Nigel: The issue here is that the current spec text requires an explicit xml:lang on tt and every p. Cyril: Also it's value must not be empty Some background: The use cases are: 1. Transcription of a show with multiple languages - it's important to be able to annotate the actual language per script event. 2. When you have, for a given event, after it has been translated, you want to preserve the original language. You can have 2 or more languages per event, one being the original, the other being the translation. I don't have a strong preference, we could live with inheritance. The document would be more regular if there is always an xml:lang on every p. Inheritance of xml:lang is not complex. It's not like CSS properties where you need a computed value. No strong preference, just in the spirit of making it simple. Are you concerned about the redundancy, the size? Nigel: Yes, somewhat, especially in the AD case. But generally I think the formal requirement is that there is a non-empty computed xml:lang on all character content. There can be a suggestion of a way of doing it, but not the formal requirement to have it on every p element. Especially early in the workflow, it may well be that the original language text is all in the document's xml:lang and adding it everywhere is unnecessary. Cyril: I agree. I think you're happy to say that there shall be a non-empty computed xml:lang on all character content, and either a recommendation or a permission to put it on every p, something like that? Nigel: Yes. Cyril: Fine with that. Nigel: Any other views? SUMMARY: Require non-empty computed xml:lang on all character content, permit/recommend having it on every p element. Nigel: It could also be on span elements, by the way, in principle. Cyril: I would say the recommendation should be to split per language. But you may have one Spanish word in an English sentence, say, you may want to tag that. Nigel: Exactly. I'm in favour of flexibility unless a strong reason to constrain. Cyril: So you or me will prepare a pull request? Nigel: Yes, others welcome too! Do we want to allow inline styles? w3c/dapt#60 <Github> [16]https://github.com/w3c/dapt/issues/60 : Do we want to allow inline styles? [16] https://github.com/w3c/dapt/issues/60 Nigel: Is there any reason to disallow inline styles? Cyril: First thought I had was about Japanese - does it make sense to have Ruby in AD or Dubbing Scripts, but if you want it then it has to be on the span level. I think I would be silent here and let implementations do what they want. It's out of scope of our spec. If you have a processor that doesn't use styles it will ignore them. If you want to make subtitle files then it's a good idea to allow them. Nigel: Yes, they're permitted in IMSC. Cyril: Yes Happy to see if you have any wording you want to add. Nigel: One other use case: for audio mixing, we expect to use the animate element and that effectively sets and varies the values of inline style attributes, in this case things like tta:gain and tta:pan. So from that point of view it would be complex to prohibit inline styling. Cyril: Are they considered inline if they're only on animate? Nigel: I haven't checked that in detail. Cyril: On the principle I would prefer to allow it by being silent. I'm happy to see wording if you want to be more explicit about it. Nigel: OK I think it's a note alongside the other text on styling. I have started work on a pull request for styling, for issue 29, so I'll include this in that. SUMMARY: Permit inline styling Consider timing syntax constraints w3c/dapt#59 <Github> [17]https://github.com/w3c/dapt/issues/59 : Consider timing syntax constraints [17] https://github.com/w3c/dapt/issues/59 Nigel: In particular this one is about prohibiting use of the dur attribute At the moment we say begin and end attributes must be present. One issue is about adaptation, where @btsimonh suggested omitting end attributes within spans, but allowing begin attributes as a mechanism for specifying word timings. So two questions: 1, the attributes we permit, and 2. the syntax of time expressions themselves. I think we want to say nothing about time expressions? I think the only time constraint is that the timebase must be media. Cyril: This is the type of question where we need feedback from implementers. Do they need all the options? I don't have a strong opinion either way. The choice of begin and end was for simplicity. Pierre: Even more obscure, if timeContainer is seq or par. That one is pretty safe to forbid I think, at least to specify that it will always be par. (by prohibiting it from being specified) Nigel: However there's a use case for seq here! Cyril: There's a difference between timing at event level, where only one is active at any time. Nigel: I thought we need to handle multiple speakers at the same time? Cyril: Oh yes, forget that. Nigel: My AD use case is to slightly simplify the expression of "fade, mix AD in, fade back" as three always sequential things, where the begin of each is the end of the previous. However I've never done it that way, I've always explicitly set the times using par. I'm happy to stick with par unless we hear otherwise. Cyril: Let's do that. If we want to map to IMSC, seq is not allowed, right? Pierre: No, it is allowed in IMSC. I'll check Yes, pretty sure there's no restriction. Nigel: The advantage of prohibiting it is simpler implementation, the con is it might prevent some authoring cases. Pierre: I think they're always mappable one to the other, so simplifying parsing marginally might be good. I suspect that the first writers of IMSC would have forbidden seq had they been aware of timeContainer. Nigel: I propose to mark timeContainer as prohibited, Pierre: I would not constrain dur Nigel: Yes, I'm a bit concerned about that. Pierre: It's not worth the risk given the complexity of implementation. Nigel: So I propose we permit dur. And then for the time expression syntax, I propose we leave it open to anything in TTML, but add an editorial note requesting specific feedback on this point, to highlight the question during wide review. Cyril: IMSC has no restrictions on time expressions? Pierre: No, I think it had a recommendation of using begin and end but that is not present now. The good news is there are multiple implementations of temporal syntax computation/resolution so the risk there is not great. One way to limit the risk is to provide really good examples and templates. Cyril: Do we really need wallclock time? Pierre: That's a different question - IMSC only does media time. Cyril: No, my question was ambiguous. The definition of time expression includes wallclock time. Pierre: In IMSC there are no restrictions. All the options are permitted. Oh, but not #time-wall-clock, that's prohibited. Cyril: I want to prohibit it here too. Nigel: I have no use case for it, happy to prohibit it. Cyril: What about timebase? Media only? Nigel: Yes, I would say so. I think I proposed it somewhere, very happy to confirm. Cyril: There's one issue here, which is #45, about synchronisation. Nigel: Yes, that's where I proposed it. Cyril: I think we did agree, but did not capture it clearly. It's not implemented in the spec. Nigel: OK we'd better do that! Cyril: Actually in the feature list constraints it does do this, but it's not in the text. Nigel: We still need to review all those dispositions. Formally it's there, agreed. SUMMARY: timebase must be media, no wallclock, no timeContainer, permit dur, don't be dogmatic about presence of begin and end everywhere Cyril: Do we need begin somewhere though? Nigel: In the extreme case of a short clip it may be only occupied with one utterance for the entire duration, so it would not add anything to specify begin and end. Rechartering status update Nigel: At end of TPAC Atsushi was preparing the team report for the FO Council experiment. Since then there has been a bit of chatter on the charter draft pull request from Apple, but I don't think it's gone anywhere particularly helpful. The PR was rebased. Atsushi, how are you getting on, do you need anything from us? Atsushi: It's finished, and a call for participation for the FO Council was opened from this Monday for 2.5 weeks. FO Council may start in mid October. Before that, the team report will be shared with the TTWG and the formal objector, to get any comments. That's the current status. Nigel: That call for participation was this Monday just gone? Atsushi: Yes Nigel: Any questions from anyone on this? Group: No questions. Rather than using ttm:role for script type, define new attribute w3c/dapt#54 <Github> [18]https://github.com/w3c/dapt/issues/54 : Rather than using ttm:role for script type, define new attribute [18] https://github.com/w3c/dapt/issues/54 Github: [19]https://github.com/w3c/dapt/issues/54 [19] https://github.com/w3c/dapt/issues/54 Nigel: Suggestion at the moment is to define a new attribute in daptm: namespace for the script type. Other alternatives are: 1. Add values to ttm:role via registry 2. Use some other existing metadata such as something defined by EBU in ebuttm: namespace It occurred to me that the path of least resistance is to define a new attribute. Then there's the question of future flexibility, where I suggested we define the value space in a registry. Do we have semantic or syntactic constraints on the document based on script type? Cyril: Yes, for example Character is mandatory when dubbing. So depending on the script type value you may require this or that. The more I think of it the more I prefer a specific attribute rather than making implementers worry about ttm:role and its other possible values. This way we isolate/limit the work to be done. My take on registry is only introduce it if we need to in the future. It would only be editorial? Nigel: It's possible to have registry tables embedded in Recs Cyril: I would prefer to avoid that for now. Nigel: That's fine for me, let's do that. SUMMARY: Define new script type attribute and don't make it a registry Meeting close <atsushi> [20]https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35125/ tpac2022-Hybrid/ [20] https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35125/tpac2022-Hybrid/ Atsushi: For AOB, please feed back on the WBS survey about hybrid TPAC, link above. Cyril: I did actually submit it, we received it on the last day, the Friday Nigel: I didn't notice it, will look. Thanks. Nigel: We're over time for today, let's adjourn, thanks all. Next meeting is in two weeks. If we need more frequent meetings while we are doing a lot of editorial work we can increase the frequency. Cyril: That might work in November - October is very busy with other events. Nigel: Let's bear that in mind as a possibility. Pierre: If it gets to the point where there are a few significant issues, we can plan an in-person meeting if that would help. I mention it now because it takes more planning. It's mostly DAPT folks - the rest we can deal with remotely. Nigel: Thanks, that's a good place to end. [adjourns meeting] Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by [21]scribe.perl version 192 (Tue Jun 28 16:55:30 2022 UTC). [21] https://w3c.github.io/scribe2/scribedoc.html
Received on Friday, 30 September 2022 16:19:10 UTC