- From: Nigel Megitt <nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk>
- Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2024 17:29:38 +0000
- To: "public-tt@w3.org" <public-tt@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <1CB99DBC-56D1-43EE-A8B7-A11CDE7AB3F2@bbc.co.uk>
Thanks all for attending today’s TTWG meeting, and to Chris for scribing. Minutes can be found in HTML format at https://www.w3.org/2024/11/07-tt-minutes.html Those minutes in plain text: [1]W3C [1] https://www.w3.org/ Timed Text Working Group Teleconference 07 November 2024 [2]Previous meeting. [3]Agenda. [4]IRC log. [2] https://www.w3.org/2024/09/27-tt-minutes.html [3] https://github.com/w3c/ttwg/issues/294 [4] https://www.w3.org/2024/11/07-tt-irc Attendees Present Andreas, Atsushi, Chris, Cyril, Mike, Nigel, Pierre Regrets Gary Chair Nigel Scribe nigel, cpn Contents 1. [5]This meeting 2. [6]DAPT 1. [7]Make "Using computed attribute values" normative w3c/dapt#256 2. [8]Check feature dispositions w3c/dapt#265 3. [9]Prepare for CRS w3c/dapt#269 3. [10]IMSC 4. [11]TTML2 - outdated banner 5. [12]Charter 2025 6. [13]Next meeting Meeting minutes This meeting Nigel: Welcome back everyone, it's been a little while since we met, last meeting was at TPAC! Topics for today, DAPT CfC, IMSC 1.3, the TTML banner, and planning for our next charter, as the current one expires in April … Anything else, or points to raise within those? (nothing) DAPT Nigel: Following TPAC, I sent a CfC on October 10 to request transition to CR … There wasn't a single document ready for review, we had some PRs for review … Didn't get responses, but we did get responses to the PRs … Our approach with PRs is not to merge unless there's at least one approval … I don't think we have consensus yet … Another thing, Atsushi noticed we've made some significant changes since we last requested horizontal review … You made a list of changes, and asked i18n for a delta review. Is that all we need to do? Atsushi: Fuqiao will review the delta. Now Simone has joined as Security lead, I hope he'll look at the Security considerations section Nigel: Do we have to wait for their responses before requsting transition? Atsushi: I hope they'll get back to us in 1 or 2 weeks. I don't think we need to wait for long Nigel: When PLH said we didn't need to wait for Security review, is that still true? Atsushi: I suggest waiting for a couple of weeks Nigel: Any other questions on this? (nothing) Nigel: I suggest looking at the open PRs and decide what to do … We've closed 14 issues and merged 22 PRs during and since TPAC … Not ready to declare consensus. I'm hoping to get more clarity Make "Using computed attribute values" normative [14]w3c/dapt#256 [14] https://github.com/w3c/dapt/issues/256 github: [15]w3c/dapt#256 [15] https://github.com/w3c/dapt/pull/256 Nigel: Andreas approved this PR. Cyril may be requesting changes … Your comment wasn't about a change introduced in the PR, about using computed attribute values … In section 6.4, there's a paragraph about computing times to div elements … I tried another rewrite. What to do? Cyril: Your rewrite looks good SUMMARY: @nigelmegitt to commit proposed change and @cconcolato to approve before merge Nigel: Any other comments on this? (nothing) Check feature dispositions [16]w3c/dapt#265 [16] https://github.com/w3c/dapt/issues/265 github: [17]w3c/dapt#265 [17] https://github.com/w3c/dapt/pull/265 Nigel: This was in response to an issue from Andreas. I think I fixed the inconsistency Andreas: I had a brief look, but haven't given feedback or approval yet Nigel: It's a substantive change, it would need checking. Would someone like to volunteer to do that? … I'm not comfortable merging it directly, because of the potential impacts … We need to check the profile documents and the dispositions match correctly Andreas: I can do it but not in the next days SUMMARY: Awaiting approval review Prepare for CRS [18]w3c/dapt#269 [18] https://github.com/w3c/dapt/issues/269 github: [19]w3c/dapt#269 [19] https://github.com/w3c/dapt/pull/269 Nigel: I used the draft PR feature for this, similar to how Pierre does it with IMSC … Once everything is merged, I'll rebase this, and that will be the basis for the CRS … No action needed. It changes the spec status, refers to implementation report, etc. End date says 1 January for Proposed Recommendation, may need to adjust … CR exit criteria us almost the same wording as for IMSC … I cross-checked the wording against the charter. AFAICT it's compatible with that … Unless there are comments, I'll assume it's ok (nothing) Nigel: Please LMK if anyone should be added to Acknowledgements SUMMARY: Rebase as needed and use as the basis of the CRS transition request IMSC Nigel: We're building momentum towards working on IMSC 1.3. Atsushi has been in touch with ARIB? Atsushi: There's an email conversation Nigel: It seems positive … I hope we can include the Japanese market's requirements in IMSC 1.3 and get confirmation from them Pierre: Thank you for following up with ARIB. It would potentially impact the scope of the revision, depending on where we end up … Looking forward to what they have to say Atsushi: I'll continue keeping in touch with them TTML2 - outdated banner Nigel: We discussed at TPAC, and came up with a conclusion, Atsushi shared by email [20](Member only) member email proposal by Atsushi [20] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-tt/2024Oct/0000.html Atsushi: If that draft text is fine for you all, I'll send it to the sys-team to consider Nigel: Seems fine. When there's a new version of a Rec, we point forwards to the latest version of the work in progress … Any thoughts, or reasons not to proceed? (nothing) Nigel: Atsushi, please go ahead Charter 2025 [21]Current TTWG Charter [21] https://www.w3.org/2023/04/timed-text-wg-charter.html Nigel: Our current charter ends on 7 April 2025 … My proposal is not to change it, apart from updating the end date … Want to ensure DAPT and IMSC 1.3 are both in scope … I'd argue they're already in scope of the current wording, but we can make it explicit … Could move IMSC HRM to the Maintenance section Pierre: There may be style features, but that's really maintenance … We'll get to a state where everything is in maintenance Nigel: That'd be a good state to be in Nigel: Specific proposal is to remove IMSC HRM from that list and add DAPT and IMSC 1.3 … That means in the New Normative Specifications section, under Profiles of TTML2, the second paragraph is an example application (DAPT). So reword to make it a historical example, or we could delete that paragraph … I want to make as few changes as possible … I assume we'll be good to set an end date of +2 years Nigel: If you have other suggestions or changes, please let me know … We could list ARIB in section 4.2 … Action is on the chairs (?) to create a new draft. We might need updates for the latest charter template Atsushi: We should align to the template first Nigel: That creates change without adding value, so would prefer not to do that Atsushi: I agree on aligning to the template after we make the updates. I'd work in the template aligning part Pierre: Do we need to do anything to let us use new publishing mechanisms, e.g., for evergreen specs? Nigel: Good question. I don't think that requires charter changes. The details for that are in the Process … Additionally, WebVTT already has that pattern, so I think we're good Pierre: There was some traffic about a text track community group, and potentially closing it? Should we add text to the charter about moving things here? Atsushi: To change the charter for streamlining publication, if we want to keep the Rec track document in CR, we may need to add something, but if we intend to take it to Rec we don't need to change anything … Also, there's ongoing work to close inactive CGs, since there's no defined chartered period for CGs, and many CGs are inactive. Periodically there's a search done and suggestion to close inactive groups … A CG working with us on WebVTT. I discussed with Nigel and Gary about this being a joint deliverable and moving it to TTWG, but not finished yet … Also the Audio CG (exact name?), things brought to TTWG on 608/708. If there's no other reason to keep the CG open, we may need to discuss [22]Web Media Text Tracks Community Group [22] https://www.w3.org/groups/cg/texttracks/ [23]Web Media Text Tracks Community Group Home Page [23] https://www.w3.org/community/texttracks/ Atsushi: TTWG is already handling issues relating to 608/708 parameters, I believe we can the CG is no longer required from our side … On the charter front, WebVTT is in scope, so I don't think we need specific ? for that Nigel: The only document that I can't see who owns it is the TTML to WebVTT mapping document. It's listed under Web Media Text Tracks CG but not as a TTWG Note [24]TTWG Publications (omits the TTML to WebVTT mapping document) [24] https://www.w3.org/groups/wg/timed-text/publications/ Nigel: That's the only one I think is missing. … The last message in the CG was in Feb 2015 Pierre: The only deliverable I'm aware of is that Note, and that was transferred to TTWG … Someone could argue to keep the CG open, but with that added we're good from TTWG's standpoint Nigel: The charter doesn't need to be specific about non-normative documents … Atsushi mentioned something about perpetual CR. I'd object to a suggestion to do that. It's the opposite of what we should be doing at W3C … With Web Media Text Tracks Community Group, I think we're saying there are no deliverables we're waiting for from them. We have everything we need. … Happy for work to happen in CGs, but it should be the CG Chair's call to confirm that's OK [25]ttml-webvtt-mapping repo [25] https://github.com/w3c/ttml-webvtt-mapping/ Pierre: Once we've found the Note, add to the thread that the documents have a home in TTWG. Could help people decide … Atsushi, would you mind checking the document is correctly associated with TTWG? Atsushi: I believe we have an issue about that … In the WebVTT, I believe Nigel: It's not one of our TTWG issues … There's an issue in WebVTT, from 2021 ([26]webvtt#501), but that's not about the mapping document [26] https://github.com/w3c/webvtt/issues/501 Atsushi: So we'd need to add another one Next meeting Nigel: Our next call is in 2 weeks time. I cancelled the scheduled call for 2 Jan. We have a few meetings before end of year … I added new meetings into February 2025. If the meeting timing causes any difficulty, let me know [adjourned] Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by [27]scribe.perl version 238 (Fri Oct 18 20:51:13 2024 UTC). [27] https://w3c.github.io/scribe2/scribedoc.html
Received on Thursday, 7 November 2024 17:29:48 UTC