{Minutes} TTWG Teleconference 2024-01-18

Thanks all for attending today’s TTWG meeting. Minutes can be found in HTML format at https://www.w3.org/2024/01/18-tt-minutes.html


In text format:

   [1]W3C

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


                Timed Text Working Group Teleconference

18 January 2024

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

      [2] https://www.w3.org/2023/12/21-tt-minutes.html

      [3] https://github.com/w3c/ttwg/issues/273

      [4] https://www.w3.org/2024/01/18-tt-irc


Attendees

   Present
          Andreas, Atsushi, Chris_Needham, Cyril, Gary, Matt,
          Mike, Nigel, Pierre

   Regrets
          -

   Chair
          Gary, Nigel

   Scribe
          cpn, nigel

Contents

    1. [5]This meeting
    2. [6]IMSC HRM
    3. [7]DAPT
    4. [8]Next meeting and meeting close

Meeting minutes

  This meeting

   Nigel: Two main things today, IMSC HRM and transition request
   to PR, and DAPT topics for discussion. Anything else to add?

   (nothing)

  IMSC HRM

   Nigel: I raised a CfC on a pull request that Pierre opened. We
   discussed in last meeting, but made some last minute editorial
   changes
   … e.g., to definitions and references to external specs. I sent
   the CfC a week ago, the decision period ends on 25th January
   … This is an opportunity to raise discussion points. The
   implementation report is important to show we've met CR exit
   criteria
   … Atsushi has reviewed, and made some changes, making it easier
   for others outside the group to follow
   … Decision to be made about publication date.

   [9]CfC Email 2024-01-18

      [9] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tt/2024Jan/0000.html


   [10]Pull request of Proposed Recommendation version

     [10] https://github.com/w3c/imsc-hrm/pull/77


   Atsushi: The transition reviews are held on Fridays, so if we
   send the request on 25 or 26, considering the required period,
   the review might come in February
   … After approval, publication will be on a Tuesday or Thursday

   Pierre: There's a CR end date that we may have to set manually
   … I guess that would be next week

   Nigel: The CR end date says 23/07/20, maybe that was from the
   first CR?

   Atsushi: Each snapshot has a review opportunity, so that period
   should be 60 days

   Nigel: Looking at the history, first CR snapshot was 22 June
   2023 and that sets a no-earlier-than date of 2023-07-20 so
   that's where that date comes from
   … The other date that's more concerning is 11 January 2024. I
   don't know where that comes from
   … That's like an AC review close date

   Atsushi: There's a 4 week comment period
   … for Proposed Recommendation there are several dates. AC
   review should be 4 weeks

   <atsushi> [11]https://w3c.github.io/spec-releases/

   milestones/?pr=2024-01-30

     [11] https://w3c.github.io/spec-releases/milestones/?pr=2024-01-30


   Nigel: May need setting manually, if we can't set the date in
   ReSpec. Atsushi, is that something you can do?

   Pierre: It would help me if you can put the dates we want in
   the pull request, and I'll look at the ReSpec

   <atsushi> [12]https://w3c.github.io/imsc-hrm/spec/

   imsc-hrm.html?specStatus=PR

     [12] https://w3c.github.io/imsc-hrm/spec/imsc-hrm.html?specStatus=PR


   Atsushi: Changing status and publication should work. The date
   would be set automatically

   Nigel: Any thoughts or comments on the substance of the report,
   before we make a WG decision to request transition to PR?

   Chris: I had a look at the implementation report and have two
   questions.
   … One is: does the report need to show traceability to spec
   sections?
   … The report has a comprehensive list of test cases where each
   test case describes what it is testing
   … but I did not see a link to section numbers or feature
   definitions in the spec.
   … Second question: when we discussed the Charter and there was
   a lot of focus on the CR Exit Criteria,
   … was there a concern raised about the use of human generated
   content?
   … I note the test suite is human authored content. Maybe I'm
   misremembering.
   … I think one of the reviewers wanted to see machine generated
   content being tested.

   Nigel: The test suite content is fine to be human authored. I
   don't think anyone was arguing otherwise
   … It shows deliberate authoring to test features in the spec.
   That's normal
   … Those synthetic tests are useful for verifying a valid
   implementation is behaving correctly
   … What people wanted in the tests is on the authoring side
   tooling - so if we're asserting that the presence of large
   amounts of content meet the authoring requirements of HRM,
   … what they wanted to see was an implementation on the
   authoring side. It mattered not that the content was human
   generated, rather that a human was using a software tool
   … When there are two sides: a producer and a consumer, and here
   the consumer is the validator, and the spec defines
   requirements for the data passing over the interface. Some
   reviewers wanted us to show there's a software implementation
   as producer

   [13]Implementation Report

     [13] https://www.w3.org/wiki/TimedText/IMSC-HRM-1ED-Implementation-Report


   Chris: Thanks, that makes sense. And the point about
   traceability?

   Pierre: When we generated the unit tests, the goal was to get
   coverage of the spec. It should cover the entire spec, but the
   report doesn't have an explicit mapping
   … If we feel it's important, we can add it

   Nigel: The report says each test contains a description. So two
   concerns here: checking that the test suite adequately tests
   the requirements, and then understanding what each test
   exercises
   … In the past specs like TTML define feature designators that
   are in the IR as pointers to what that test exercises. May be a
   lot of work, but I guess it's possible to add descriptions to
   the table

   Pierre: There may not be a mapping between sections and test.
   Chris, do you think the descriptions in the tests are
   sufficient?

   Chris: I think the descriptions are good so I would say they
   are sufficient.
   … I understand from reading the specification that there is not
   a simple 1:1 mapping.
   … I'm not here to try to ask you to do extra work!
   … Just pre-empting potential feedback.

   Nigel: Wondering if it's possible to do a simple copy/paste,
   but may make the table unwieldy

   Pierre: Does the table have a link to the document itself? Then
   it would be trivial to click through to see the descriptions
   … I also want to avoid duplicating information, things can get
   out of sync in the future

   Nigel: Do you think that [linking the test filenames to the
   files in the repo] would help AC reviewers?

   Chris: Yes I think that would be a helpful addition.
   … I also note that in the interest of avoiding duplication, the
   pass tests also correspond to a fail test,
   … and the description is not always in both tests of the pair.

   Nigel: So we could put the pass and fail test in a single row

   Pierre: We could add full description to the pass test, and
   link them. But I wouldn't combine them into the same row, as
   there may not always be both
   … But happy to add links, and descriptions to the pass files

   Nigel: Anyone else have questions?

   (none)

   Nigel: Atsushi, is it a good idea for you to start preparing
   the transition request? It might expose other questions you
   have

   Atsushi: I can do that, but I don't think I have any further
   items
   … There's a Changes section from last CR, no need for another
   horizontal review. We're now in CfC, wide review should be
   finished, so I don't think there's anything else than preparing
   the IR report

   <atsushi> [14]https://w3c.github.io/imsc-hrm/spec/

   imsc-hrm.html?specStatus=PR&publishDate=2024-01-30&prEnd=2024-0
   2-27

     [14] https://w3c.github.io/imsc-hrm/spec/imsc-hrm.html?specStatus=PR&publishDate=2024-01-30&prEnd=2024-02-27


   Nigel: You have one week to raise questions, but if noone
   comments, I'll declare consensus for a WG Decision and we can
   request the transition after that.

   Atsushi: Some Respec configuration changes, for /TR publication
   (in IRC above)

   Nigel: That's fine, of course

   Nigel: The pull request changes the spec status already, but we
   don't know when the transition review will happen or how long

   Pierre: Please comment in the PR and I'm happy to add those
   dates
   … It would be great if the release on GitHub would match the
   publication date, so I'd like to have the dates in the PR and
   make the changes
   … I'll work on the IR and test suite descriptions
   … Thank you all for your help with this

   [15]Action for Pierre to add descriptions to tests where
   they're missing

     [15] https://github.com/w3c/imsc-hrm-tests/issues/14


  DAPT

   Nigel: Last publication was on 23 December. All the work on
   language was merged
   … Some additional PRs have been opened or commented on since
   … No issues labeled as agenda, so looks like we're progressing
   to CR. Cyril, anything to raise on DAPT?

   Cyril: Not really.

   Nigel: Issues remaining are mainly editorial. There are some
   questions listed as CR must-have, and some are choices,
   especially wrt embedded audio resources, referenced audio, and
   encodings
   … Absent any implementation experience to help answer those,
   maybe the thing to do is list those as at-risk. If we get
   experience to settle on a preferred subset, we can remove the
   others
   … Does that sound like a reasonable plan?

   Cyril: I think so. We should try to resolves all the ones we
   can, though.

   Nigel: I expect you and I will continue work on the PRs, Cyril

   Cyril: I mentioned a few weeks ago I was working on open
   sourcing a library and open content. This is progressing, hope
   to announce something soon, Feb or March.
   … We should have a variant of Neflix Meridian content, with
   dubbing and AD

   Nigel: That's really positive, thanks

  Next meeting and meeting close

   Nigel: If there's no other business, we can close the meeting
   … Thank you everybody

   Nigel: I have a conflict in 2 weeks time
   … We could have a meeting if need be, may need Gary to chair

   Gary: I don't know if I can

   Nigel: We may not have much to discuss, so let's see what we
   have

   Nigel: For now, let's adjourn. Thank you everyone. [adjourns
   meeting]


    Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by
    [16]scribe.perl version 221 (Fri Jul 21 14:01:30 2023 UTC).

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