{Minutes} TTWG Teleconference 2024-11-07

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 [11]TTML2 - outdated banner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