{Minutes} TTWG Teleconference 2023-03-16

Thanks all for attending today’s TTWG meeting. Minutes can be found in HTML format at https://www.w3.org/2023/03/16-tt-minutes.html


Please note that the Chairs declared Consensus for the expedited CfC<https://github.com/w3c/charter-timed-text/issues/86> for changing the draft TTWG charter, and merged the change.

Those minutes in plain text:

   [1]W3C

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


                Timed Text Working Group Teleconference

16 March 2023

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

      [2] https://www.w3.org/2023/03/02-tt-minutes.html

      [3] https://github.com/w3c/ttwg/issues/246

      [4] https://www.w3.org/2023/03/16-tt-irc


Attendees

   Present
          Atsushi, Cyril, Gary, Nigel

   Regrets
          Pierre

   Chair
          Gary, Nigel

   Scribe
          gkatsev, nigel

Contents

    1. [5]This meeting
    2. [6]Charter status
         1. [7]Results of Call for Consensus for
            w3c/charter-timed-text#86
    3. [8]Defining a Registry #241 and #243
    4. [9]TPAC 2023 planning
    5. [10]AOB: DST Change upcoming
    6. [11]Meeting close

Meeting minutes

  This meeting

   Nigel: Agenda topics for today:
   … Charter status
   … Registry
   … (IMSC-HRM we'll drop in the absence of Pierre)
   … TPAC 2023 planning
   … Plus in AOB, DST affecting the UTC start of future meetings.
   … Any other business?

   Atsushi: I can issue a Zoom URL for TTWG using the W3C Zoom
   account

   Nigel: Who can administer that, just staff, or Chairs too?

   Atsushi: I haven't investigated it yet

   Gary: At least the Chairs should be able to manage/host the
   meeting

   Atsushi: I think that kind of configuration should be possible.

   Nigel: Ok, thank you, let's do that offline.

  Charter status

   Nigel: The most important item of business is the CfC for
   changing the charter draft.

    Results of Call for Consensus for [12]w3c/charter-timed-text#86

     [12] https://github.com/w3c/charter-timed-text/issues/86


   <Github> [13]w3c/charter-timed-text#86 : s/Content
   implementation/Content-producing implementation

     [13] https://github.com/w3c/charter-timed-text/pull/86


   Github: [14]w3c/charter-timed-text#86

     [14] https://github.com/w3c/charter-timed-text/pull/86


   Nigel: I told the TTWG by email that I wanted to expedite this
   change,
   … and asked for positive approvals to allow us to do that.
   … Thank you to everyone who added their approval.
   … There were approvals from all the regular participants, and
   no "request changes"
   … and no comments.
   … So I think we're good to declare Consensus on this. Gary,
   happy?

   Gary: Yes

   Nigel: Chairs declare CfC in this pull request to be concluded
   with consensus to make the change.

   SUMMARY: Chairs declare CfC in this pull request to be
   concluded with consensus to make the change.

   Nigel: Also worth noting Apple approved it too.
   … That's merged now.

   github-bot, end topic

   Nigel: The next action is for me to inform Florian so that the
   W3C Council can conclude.
   … Thank you everyone.
   … Anything else for this agenda topic?

   Nothing more

  Defining a Registry #241 and #243

   Nigel: Not sure if anyone other than me and Atsushi have had a
   chance to review this yet.
   … Please do!
   … The wider questions are:
   … * should we adopt this in the TTML Profile Registry?
   … * Should we be publishing a document we can reference from
   Registries.
   … or aiming to include by duplication.
   … I don't have strong opinions right now.

   Cyril: It would help if we had a preview of what changed

   Nigel: The limitation is with PR Preview, since this ttwg repo
   has more than one document in it
   … I think Atsushi created a copy of it
   … Otherwise you have to clone it and open it locally.

   Atsushi: I'll recreate that...

   <atsushi> [15]https://ttml.w3c.himor.in/

   boilerplate-registry-20230316.html

     [15] https://ttml.w3c.himor.in/boilerplate-registry-20230316.html


   Nigel: Thank you, best to review that offline and add comments
   on the pull request.

   Cyril: Is the final name going to be Registry Boilerplate?
   … This is more like a process than something to copy and paste

   Nigel: That's what is needed, the registry definition has to
   include a process

   Cyril: Imagine we want to create a registry for DAPT, what
   would we do, clone the page?

   Nigel: Yes

   Cyril: And then change section 2?
   … I see that §3 is the registry itself.

   Gary: Theoretically we could publish the process as a separate
   document and then reference it.
   … We would still want something to be able to copy, like
   section 3.

   Nigel: I added a checklist for applying to a real registry.

   Atsushi: If we can organise everything for the whole registry
   into one section then it would be
   … easier to copy and paste.
   … Or, there is a feature of Respec to include a section from
   another file, like index.html
   … inserting section-2.html by Respec.

   Nigel: That's a really good idea, I didn't think of that.

   Gary: Referencing it sounds like it might be better because if
   we want to update the definition

   <atsushi> [16]https://respec.org/docs/#external-includes


     [16] https://respec.org/docs/#external-includes


   Gary: and there's more than one registry then we'd have to
   update all the registries.
   … If we can update in one place and have it propagate
   everywhere that would be good.

   Atsushi: I can't see an easy hack for this, there could be one
   later.

   Nigel: I think your suggestion is already a good hack.

   Atsushi: I meant publishing the boilerplate as a statement and
   then normatively referencing.
   … It seems that is not desired or allowed.

   Nigel: Why?

   Atsushi: Registry is similar to Rec track operation. Statement
   has a final review by committee,
   … but not getting the same level of status as Rec track.
   … It's an endorsement but not a Rec track style commitment.

   Nigel: Statements are W3C level, not WG level?

   Atsushi: Yes, raised from Note.

   Nigel: Why shouldn't a Registry Definition reference another
   Registry Definition?

   Atsushi: That is an interesting question I will have to ask
   about the publication approval process.

   Cyril: I had a look at the proposal. My main comment is why do
   we think the boilerplate should
   … contain all the text that we don't expect to change. All the
   process part about custodian,
   … the definitions of provisional, final and deprecated. Can we
   have a TTWG document that defines these
   … and have the registry definition be shorter and just define
   the bits that are needed.

   Nigel: That's the core of the question: this document could be
   that, potentially.
   … It's quite long when you write it all down.

   Cyril: Yes, we should just introduce the registry, point to the
   normative parts, and define only the local things.

   Atsushi: The question is where we can put the common parts.

   Nigel: I'd be happy to go back to the Process CG and ask about
   Reg Definitions referencing other docs.

   Cyril: We shouldn't call it boilerplate, we should call it
   Registry Process,
   … and then have the process bit referenceable, and a
   boilerplate part for copying and pasting.

   Nigel: OK, then the copy-paste part would be in the appendix.
   … Seems to me that the way forward is:
   … 1. I'll check what kind of document a Registry Definition can
   normatively reference
   … 2. Create a separate repo for this document and restructure
   as Cyril suggested above.

   group: [nods]

   Nigel: Anything else on this topic?

  TPAC 2023 planning

   Nigel: Placeholder - we need to start thinking about this.

   Gary: The survey is due mid-May.

   Nigel: What do we need?

   Gary: Same as last year...
   … Approx number of in-person, joint meetings, non-overlaps,
   days we want to meet, flexibility
   … Dates are Sep 11 through 15.

   Nigel: IBC in Amsterdam overlaps with the end of the TPAC week
   … so I suggest we ask to schedule media related meetings in the
   first half of the week.

   Gary: Seville to Amsterdam isn't too far

   Nigel: Same time zone!

   Gary: We need the survey by May 8th specifically

   Cyril: I would be as simple as taking the participants who
   normally come, and making it the maximum

   Gary: I doubt it would be that different from last year.

   Nigel: Depends a lot on attitudes towards international travel,
   and if they revert to years gone by,
   … when we had lots of observers in the room, particularly from
   East Asia.
   … Big question is agenda topics, unclear to me.
   … Not sure if we want to tackle big questions like subtitles
   and captions in the web ecosystem,
   … or user customisation of subtitle and caption presentation.

   Gary: Might be interesting to see if we can push Apple's HTML
   text track cue preview forward.

   Nigel: Agreed

   <gkatsev> [17]TexTTrackCue explainer from Apple

     [17] https://github.com/WebKit/explainers/tree/main/texttracks


   Nigel: Of course there might be some DAPT stuff to work on too.

   Nigel: The topic is open, we don't have to conclude now.
   … I agree with Cyril's general approach
   … Anything else on this topic?

  AOB: DST Change upcoming

   Nigel: Our next call on 30th March, and the subsequent ones
   until some time in October,
   … will be scheduled 1 hour earlier in UTC to accommodate DST.
   … That's already factored into the TTWG calendar entries.

  Meeting close

   Nigel: Thanks everyone, we've completed our agenda.
   … [adjourns meeting]


    Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by
    [18]scribe.perl version 210 (Wed Jan 11 19:21:32 2023 UTC).

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