- From: Nigel Megitt <nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk>
- Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2023 17:04:30 +0000
- To: TTWG <public-tt@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <30C854C5-EB1E-41AB-A231-9BB88BCCE13D@bbc.co.uk>
Thanks all for attending the last TTWG meeting of this calendar year. Minutes can be found in HTML format at https://www.w3.org/2023/12/21-tt-minutes.html
We made one resolution at https://www.w3.org/2023/12/21-tt-minutes.html#r01:
RESOLUTION: Remove the at-risk image profile feature from IMSC-HRM
The review period for this resolution, as per our Decision policy, is 10 working days. Given the upcoming holiday period, I will extend that from 2 calendar weeks to 3, so that it ends on 11th January. Please register any objections to this resolution as soon as you can.
Please also note that there we intend to issue a call for consensus (CfC) to transition IMSC-HRM to CR based on a forthcoming update that removes this feature, and that the CfC period is likely to overlap with this decision review period. An objection to today’s resolution will therefore put any such CfC on hold as well, until we have reached consensus on a way forward.
Those minutes in plain text format:
[1]W3C
[1] https://www.w3.org/
Timed Text Working Group Teleconference
21 December 2023
[2]Previous meeting. [3]Agenda. [4]IRC log.
[2] https://www.w3.org/2023/12/07-tt-minutes.html
[3] https://github.com/w3c/ttwg/issues/271
[4] https://www.w3.org/2023/12/21-tt-irc
Attendees
Present
Andreas, Atsushi, Cyril, Gary, Nigel, Pierre
Regrets
-
Chair
Gary, Nigel
Scribe
nigel
Contents
1. [5]This meeting
2. [6]IMSC-HRM
3. [7]DAPT
1. [8]Next steps
4. [9]AOB - next meeting
5. [10]Meeting close
6. [11]Summary of resolutions
Meeting minutes
This meeting
Nigel: Today we have IMSC-HRM, DAPT and any other business
… In AOB we should mention the next meeting and gauge likely
attendance.
… Any other other business?
no other business
IMSC-HRM
Pierre: We're done!
Nigel: Wow, I think I agree.
Pierre: There are two boxes in the implementation report that
are labelled as n/a for the EBU-TT Live implementation
… Do you know what that's about?
Nigel: Yes. I updated the implementation report to add the
second validating implementation,
… and I did put a note about the n/a entries.
… The reason is that they stress parts of the HRM that are not
valid in EBU-TT-D.
… Specifically style attributes that form part of the glyph
tuple, but are prohibited in EBU-TT-D.
… That means that the test documents cannot be loaded into the
object model, because
… they give an instant validation failure, even before
attempting to process against the HRM.
… There is provision for this in the IMSC-HRM spec, because
something similar applies to IMSC 1.0.1
Pierre: Okay, the other thing is we need to remove the Image
profile features before moving
… to the next stage. I wanted to get group views on that.
Cyril: What's the reason for that?
Pierre: We don't have implementations, users or implementation
report entries,
… and it's been marked at risk.
… I asked if anyone has a library of image profile IMSC
documents but nobody has come forward.
Cyril: At Netflix we do use image based captions and we have an
IMSC-like manifest so potentially
… I could test against it. But I don't have any objection to
removing it from the specification.
Pierre: imscHRM would need to add capabilities for it.
… Unless someone is using it for interchange and wants to see
it in imscHrm implementation
… I am not excited to agonise over it.
Nigel: More importantly, should we wait, or move now with what
we have?
Cyril: We can always add it back in later.
Pierre: Absolutely, it's being removed without prejudice.
Cyril: No objection from me.
Nigel: Nor me.
<atsushi> +1
Andreas: Fine with me.
Atsushi: No objection
Gary: Sounds good to me.
RESOLUTION: Remove the at-risk image profile feature from
IMSC-HRM
Pierre: Good, I'll do that.
… Also, I will remove the editorial note pointing to the open
issue.
… We will leave it open but not fix in this version of imsc-hrm
… It's [12]w3c/imsc-hrm#5 - it has not been an issue so I did
nothing about it.
[12] https://github.com/w3c/imsc-hrm/issues/5
Nigel: Yes, it felt like we were overestimating complexity but
in practice everything has passed.
Pierre: We should keep it open but note that we are not
addressing it in imsc-hrm v1.
Nigel: I think I will propose something different.
… I think we should close on the basis that we haven't
demonstrated that there's a real world problem.
… If later someone says they have documents that they think
should pass, but which don't,
… then at that stage we should investigate and open an issue
based on the investigation, and there's
… a chance it could be this cause, so we could reopen or open a
new issue. But right now
… this is not a demonstrated real world problem.
Pierre: I'm fine with that.
… We should note it as a comment, or record what we just
discussed.
Nigel: We spent a lot of time on that issue, but I think it
gets trumped by the implementation experience.
Gary: We could post this on the issue, wait a short while and
then close if nobody objects.
Nigel: +1
… I will add a pointer to this conversation to the issue after
the meeting and propose to close it with no change.
… I will also review issue 51, but I think we're fine there and
can close without action.
… Then issue 47 is purely editorial to do with term
definitions.
… Pierre, should we do anything about those issues?
Pierre: Not unless we're forced to.
… I'm going to concentrate on removing image profile, and the
note referencing issue 5.
Nigel: OK, sounds good.
… In terms of requesting transition to CR, we need to see the
updated document before proposing
… to move forward.
Pierre: In terms of that, I'd encourage a call for consensus
whenever we have the document ready,
… rather than waiting for a meeting.
Nigel: I will wait until we have the document ready.
Pierre: I will try to get it done by tomorrow.
Nigel: Given the season, we should extend the CfC review
period.
Pierre: Agree, that's fine.
… Nothing should be surprising here. The risk is limited.
Nigel: +1
… In terms of the tests we now have no open issues or pull
requests.
Pierre: Thanks to you we now have working implementations for
them all, with bugs fixed, so I think we're good.
Nigel: We even have an extra test that we didn't at first
envisage.
Nigel: A nice point to get to at the end of the year.
… Any more on IMSC-HRM?
DAPT
Nigel: The only agenda topic in [13]https://github.com/w3c/
dapt/labels/agenda is the open pull request
… which we now have approvals for, barring some minor editorial
tweaks.
… Thanks especially to Cyril and Andreas for reviewing so many
iterations.
… Hopefully that's a process success rather than an editorial
failure! I think it's a good team effort regardless.
[13] https://github.com/w3c/dapt/labels/agenda
Andreas: Thanks Nigel for processing so many comments.
Cyril: It's a big change and reviewing the diffs is very tricky
- I had to have multiple tabs open.
… I don't know if there's a better way.
Andreas: I had the same setup, I did wonder if we should have a
separate call to agree on resolutions
… that we then apply to the spec. I think you did a great job
Nigel, but there were some issues where
… you proposed a solution and then applied it throughout the
document. Sometimes you need to
… review the complete sections again.
Nigel: Yes, there were some changes introduced along the
journey that I ended up deleting,
… big blocks of text that had no basis in the issue, which I
didn't realise without the review comments.
… It's a shame that PR preview doesn't do the example inclusion
properly.
Cyril: Yes, the examples make a big difference.
Nigel: One thing I use that could help with review is
functionality that may be extensions to VS Code
… that allow me to review and add GitHub comments to the pull
request, and preview the whole
… document locally including all the examples. Might help with
future reviews.
… My plan for this now is to process the tiny editorial
comments remaining, and go ahead and merge.
Next steps
Nigel: We have some new editorial issues, including those
raised by DVW, thanks for that.
Cyril: Can external contributors comment in discussions?
Nigel: I can't tell
Atsushi: I don't know but I believe anyone can post there, like
a normal issue.
Gary: That's what I would expect by default
Nigel: The reason we're asking is we had a report from someone
who said they could not comment.
Atsushi: Let me try a test account later.
Cyril: I don't know if it's someone with a GitHub account, or
someone who doesn't have a GitHub account
… and doesn't know how to use it.
Atsushi: Yes, GitHub account is mandatory. I thought the
discussion is whether one needs a W3C account
… linked to a GitHub account or not, I'm not sure.
Cyril: I will ask a colleague if they can try to post a test
message.
Gary: I'm looking at another repo and I can't see any access
restrictions specific to discussions.
Nigel: If we can verify that anyone with a GitHub login can
comment then we should add a "how to"
… explainer to the top of the discussion page.
… One issue we need to discuss maybe in the new year is
[14]w3c/dapt#110 which is marked as cr-must-have.
… It's about extensibility and backwards compatibility but I
don't think we've discussed it or gone
… through the permutations properly.
… Then there are also #75 and #44 about script-type based
restrictions and implementation types,
… which you might have new thoughts on Cyril?
[14] https://github.com/w3c/dapt/issues/110
Cyril: I'll look at those.
… I'm waiting for the languages PR to be merged before rebasing
the other PRs otherwise there
… would be too many conflicts.
Nigel: Understood, that's why I didn't open any more too!
<gkatsev> github confirms that anyone with read for a repo can
participate in discussions, see note at the top [15]https://
docs.github.com/en/discussions/
collaborating-with-your-community-using-discussions/
participating-in-a-discussion
[15] https://docs.github.com/en/discussions/collaborating-with-your-community-using-discussions/participating-in-a-discussion
Nigel: Thanks Gary, that's useful to know. So a GitHub login is
all that is required.
… I have people asking me about when to implement, so I'm
hoping we can transition to CR in
… maybe February now that the big things have been dealt with,
like language and registries etc.
… Anything more on DAPT?
Cyril: nothing from me. It's also my goal to work on
implementation.
… That would give me confidence that the spec has at least what
I need.
AOB - next meeting
Nigel: The next meeting scheduled is on 4th Jan - I won't be
able to make that.
… Not sure what people want to do?
Pierre: Next meeting on 18th is fine.
Cyril: Yes. 18th is better.
Gary: I doubt there'll be much to discuss between now and 4th
Jan.
… I think we've skipped it in previous years for similar
reasons.
Nigel: Ok, then I will cancel 4th Jan meeting and our next will
be 18th Jan.
Meeting close
Nigel: I just want to say thanks to everyone for all your work
this year.
… If you have a break, then enjoy it, and if you don't, also
enjoy it!
… But thanks everyone, we keep pushing forward.
Gary: Thanks Nigel
Andreas: Yes, thanks a lot Nigel
Atsushi: Happy holidays and new year
Cyril: Happy everything to you all!
Nigel: [adjourns meeting]
Summary of resolutions
1. [16]Remove the at-risk image profile feature from IMSC-HRM
Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by
[17]scribe.perl version 221 (Fri Jul 21 14:01:30 2023 UTC).
[17] https://w3c.github.io/scribe2/scribedoc.html
Received on Thursday, 21 December 2023 17:05:17 UTC