{Minutes} TTWG Teleconference 2024-12-05

Thanks all for attending today’s TTWG meeting. Minutes are available in HTML format at https://www.w3.org/2024/12/05-tt-minutes.html


In plain text:

   [1]W3C

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


                Timed Text Working Group Teleconference

05 December 2024

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

      [2] https://www.w3.org/2024/11/21-tt-minutes.html

      [3] https://github.com/w3c/ttwg/issues/296

      [4] https://www.w3.org/2024/12/05-tt-irc


Attendees

   Present
          Andreas, Atsushi, Cyril, Nigel

   Regrets
          Chris_Needham, Gary

   Chair
          Nigel

   Scribe
          nigel

Contents

    1. [5]This meeting
    2. [6]DAPT
         1. [7]CR publication status
         2. [8]Implementation Report
         3. [9]Issues and pull requests for discussion
         4. [10]Add an XSD w3c/dapt#273
         5. [11]Issue 0274 xml id editorial improvements
            w3c/dapt#275
    3. [12]IMSC 1.3 - actions to get started?
    4. [13]Charter 2025
    5. [14]Meeting Close

Meeting minutes

  This meeting

   Nigel: Today we have DAPT, IMSC1.3 and Charter
   … Any other business, or points or points to make sure we
   cover?

   Atsushi: None from me

  DAPT

    CR publication status

   Atsushi: During my previous meeting with i18n, there was no
   issue with DAPT delta.
   … I am still pushing for security. I am mostly offline this
   week and will try to catch up with emails later, sorry.

   Nigel: Key point: you haven't raised the transition request?

   Atsushi: I haven't, no, but I will push for security.

   Nigel: If they are not responding, I think we should push
   ahead.

   Cyril: I agree. Are they only reviewing the delta?

   Atsushi: The delta and the security section.

   Cyril: What is the delta?

   Nigel: Nothing significant, for me. The security section just
   points to TTML2.

   Cyril: I think we should proceed, it's taken a long time
   already.

   Nigel: Can we put a time limit on it, or can plh?

   Atsushi: I don't want to wait more than several weeks. I will
   try to catch up with email and send something to plh shortly.

   Nigel: OK.
   … Anything else for CR publication?

   nothing

    Implementation Report

   Nigel: No change to the IR since last meeting

    Issues and pull requests for discussion

   Nigel: 2 pull requests marked as agenda

    Add an XSD [15]w3c/dapt#273

     [15] https://github.com/w3c/dapt/issues/273


   github: [16]w3c/dapt#273

     [16] https://github.com/w3c/dapt/pull/273


   Nigel: I opened this PR on 15th November
   … It adds an XML Schema 1.0 XSD to the DAPT repo
   … No change to the spec. Not normative, just editorial.
   … But useful nonetheless.
   … Cyril, you tried it and found some issues, which I think I've
   fixed.
   … How's it looking?

   Cyril: I haven't had a chance to test the latest fixes but they
   probably will work.
   … My feedback is: I misunderstood at first when I looked at the
   folder.
   … I thought the TTML ones were pure copies, but you've actually
   modified them.
   … Would be good to have a README or a description.

   Nigel: I actually added a README for that exact reason!

   Cyril: Oh, fine, I should have looked!

   Nigel: I agree, it could catch people out.
   … Also the need to check out recursively because it uses a git
   submodule for the EBU-TT metadata.

   Cyril: Does that have an example or a list of tools that could
   be used?
   … I used XMLLint and it would not recognise some constructs in
   the XSD so I had to change.

   Nigel: Do you know what it didn't recognise?

   Cyril: There was a dapt.xsd and a dapt-all.xsd, and the
   dapt-all uses a mix of include and import.
   … I had to use the dapt.xsd.

   Nigel: Ah, dapt-all brings other XSDs in by namespace alone and
   depends on your tool config.
   … Maybe we should remove dapt-all.

   Cyril: Would it produce false positives or false negatives?

   Nigel: If your tool is configured to point at the unmodified
   TTML XSDs for the TTML namespace then
   … it might successfully validate constructs that are prohibited
   in DAPT.

   Cyril: I'd agree with your suggestion to remove dapt-all then.

   Nigel: I used XSD 1.0 because there are more free tools
   available that use it.
   … It's restricted compared to XSD 1.1 and makes it harder to
   constrain or apply additional rules
   … based on an unmodified TTML XSD.

   SUMMARY: @nigelmegitt to remove dapt-all and modify the README
   to match

   [group discussion of the merits of different types of
   validation tool]

   Cyril: For the community in general, a validation tool is super
   useful.

   Nigel: Very much so, and Ben Poor from EBU's Eurovox used the
   XSD to find an issue with some DAPT
   … that the tool was generating, so it showed its value within a
   day.

    Issue 0274 xml id editorial improvements [17]w3c/dapt#275

     [17] https://github.com/w3c/dapt/issues/275


   github: [18]w3c/dapt#275

     [18] https://github.com/w3c/dapt/pull/275


   Nigel: Going back to Ben from Eurovox's feedback (see [19]w3c/
   dapt#273 (comment)
   … which included an unprompted comment that the spec is well
   written and easy to read and implement,
   … he did note that he missed xml:id because it was absent from
   the examples,
   … and he wouldn't have noticed that it cannot begin with a
   digit, say.
   … So I opened the issue and this pull request to help others
   avoid falling into the same trap.
   … Would be good to get a review because I think this would be
   helpful for people.

     [19] https://github.com/w3c/dapt/pull/273#issuecomment-2520849607)

   Cyril: I will try to do that.
   … What's the procedure, should we merge the editorial changes
   in before the transition request?

   Atsushi: The transition request will use the latest version of
   the draft.

   Cyril: OK, and we're allowed to do that because there was no
   substantive change since the CfC?

   Atsushi: I believe so. Of course the CfC could be resolved in 1
   week or so, so we could reissue the decision
   … but we don't have substantive change since last time.

   Nigel: Right, we have no proposals for a substantive change,
   … Plus, our working mode for the group is that pull requests
   _are_ a form of CfC,
   … that's why we have the 2 week review period, and do not merge
   if there are Requests Changes reviews
   … outstanding.
   … My plan is, if we merge these pull requests before the
   transition request,
   … then I will rebase the transition request branch to include
   the merged changes,
   … and as long as they are only editorial, and not substantive,
   then I do not think any further
   … action or consultation should be needed.
   … It would be the same as issuing a CRD (CR Draft) after the
   CR, but avoiding an admin step.

   SUMMARY: @cconcolato to review

  IMSC 1.3 - actions to get started?

   Nigel: Deferring this since Pierre has not been able to join us
   today

  Charter 2025

   Nigel: I've had no comments on the Charter pull request.
   … Chris Needham has offered to take a look at it also.
   … I think the action is with Atsushi to review in comparison
   with the charter template.
   … Not a high priority now, at least not urgent.
   … I'm just trying to get ahead!

  Meeting Close

   Nigel: We've completed our agenda.
   … Next meeting will be on the 19th December, last one of this
   calendar year.
   … I have cancelled the meeting scheduled for 2nd January 2025,
   so the first meeting in 2025
   … will be on January 16th.
   … Thanks everyone. [adjourns meeting]


    Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by
    [20]scribe.perl version 238 (Fri Oct 18 20:51:13 2024 UTC).

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