{Minutes} TTWG Teleconference 2025-07-17

Thanks all for attending today’s TTWG meeting. Minutes can be found in HTML format at https://www.w3.org/2025/07/17-tt-minutes.html


We made one provisional resolution, subject to our decision review policy, which is:

PROPOSAL<https://www.w3.org/2025/07/17-tt-minutes.html#efea>: Publish a CR Snapshot of DAPT based on the current CR Draft

If there are no objections within the next 2 weeks I will declare it to be a Resolution with no further review period.

Those minutes in plain text:

   [1]W3C

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


                Timed Text Working Group Teleconference

17 July 2025

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

      [2] https://www.w3.org/2025/07/03-tt-minutes.html

      [3] https://github.com/w3c/ttwg/issues/311

      [4] https://www.w3.org/2025/07/17-tt-irc


Attendees

   Present
          Andreas, Atsushi, Cyril, Gary, Nigel, Pierre

   Regrets
          Chris_Needham

   Chair
          Gary, Nigel

   Scribe
          nigel

Contents

    1. [5]This meeting
    2. [6]DAPT
         1. [7]Publish a CR Snapshot
    3. [8]IMSC 1.3
         1. [9]PR Preview
         2. [10]Namespace documents
         3. [11]FPWD Publication
         4. [12]IMSC 1.3 streamlined publication
    4. [13]Interop 2025 WebVTT goals
    5. [14]TPAC 2025 planning
    6. [15]Meeting close

Meeting minutes

  This meeting

   Nigel: Today we have:
   … DAPT, IMSC 1.3, TPAC 2025 and Interop 2025 WebVTT goals
   … And Atsushi added some specifics to discuss with IMSC 1.3
   … Anything else for the agenda?

   nothing

  DAPT

   Nigel: Good status update today.
   … All the open Pull Requests have been closed
   … Similarly the tests now all match the spec
   … And the Implementation Report has links to all the tests as
   well, and
   … has been updated to match the latest version of the spec,
   … which has fewer extension features as a result of those
   recent pull requests.
   … My proposal is that we publish a new CR Snapshot.

    Publish a CR Snapshot

   PROPOSAL: Publish a CR Snapshot of DAPT based on the current CR
   Draft

   <Cyril> +1

   <atai> +1

   Nigel: Anyone in favour or against?

   <gkatsev> +1

   <nigel> +1

   Nigel: That's 4 in favour, 0 against. Decision review period
   will be 2 weeks,

   <atsushi> +1

   Nigel: we can confirm it than.
   … 5 in favour!
   … Any more on DAPT?

   Cyril: Nothing to add

  IMSC 1.3

   Nigel: There are several subtopics today.

    PR Preview

   Nigel: I don't think we have had any PRs opened since we
   hopefully fixed it, so can't
   … show if the fix worked yet.
   … I might open one just for testing.

   Atsushi: I opened a PR but from my fork so maybe not a useful
   test

    Namespace documents

   <atsushi> [16]w3c/ns#5

     [16] https://github.com/w3c/ns/pull/5


   [17]copied namespace documents from imsc#589 ns#5

     [17] https://github.com/w3c/ns/pull/5


   Nigel: I approved this, which was opened 3 weeks ago.
   … What do we need to do to make it happen?

   Atsushi: There's still no formal way to handle this repo as far
   as I understand
   … so I will talk with Philippe maybe later this month or early
   next month.

   Pierre: I think we might need to retouch them for IMSC 1.3 so I
   wouldn't agonise too much about it now.
   … When we get closer to Rec for IMSC 1.3 we will really need to
   insist,
   … but no need to waste too much energy on it now.

   Atsushi: To explain the current position, this repo is not
   automatically deployed to the
   … w3.org/ns/ site so even if this is approved here I need to
   manually push the files to CVS and
   … the website to complete it. There's no formal procedure.
   … Few specifications have touch the namespaces recently.

    FPWD Publication

   Nigel: What's the status of this?

   <atsushi> [18]https://www.w3.org/TR/2025/

   WD-ttml-imsc1.3-20250722/

     [18] https://www.w3.org/TR/2025/WD-ttml-imsc1.3-20250722/


   Atsushi: I've installed the material to w3.org/tr to be
   published next Tuesday
   … I believe there should be no issue so it should be published
   on 22nd July.

   Nigel: Thank you.
   … Pierre and I had an action associated with this to prepare
   and send a notice out to interested
   … parties, which has been drafted.

   Pierre: We should send that as soon as possible.
   … We've already warned people for the Wide Review.
   … We should also begin the Horizontal Review process as soon as
   possible.
   … Who will write the explainer, I can do it if someone can give
   me a template?

   Atsushi: We can probably copy from IMSC 1.2 when we went
   through the same process.
   … Most of the changes are unrelated to horizontal review areas,
   except for characters, which should be fine.
   … We will modify it from last time just to explain the changes,
   so it isn't so difficult.

   <atsushi> [19]https://w3c.github.io/spec-releases/

   milestones/?fpwd=2025-07-22

     [19] https://w3c.github.io/spec-releases/milestones/?fpwd=2025-07-22


   Atsushi: There is still a 90 day period and then a 60 day
   period before Rec so there should be some
   … room to get this done.

   Nigel: Still, we have to initiate the process, as Pierre said.
   … I'm happy to find the links to how we do that, and share it
   off line

   [20]How to get horizontal review

     [20] https://www.w3.org/guide/documentreview/#how-to-get-horizontal-review


   [21]TAG How to write an Explainer

     [21] https://w3ctag.github.io/explainer-explainer/


   Pierre: Do you want to do the wide review and I can start
   taking on the horizontal review?

   Nigel: Yes, can do.

   Pierre: The horizontal review should be straightforward because
   the delta is small.

   Nigel: I think we should mention for the accessibility review
   the issues that no longer apply
   … from the previous review, because of the removal of Image
   Profile.

   Pierre: I can see our IMSC-HRM horizontal review request but I
   don't see them for IMSC 1.2

   Nigel: Maybe that predated the current system of issues and
   tracking labels.
   … It was quite a while ago.

   Pierre: It was 2020.

   [22]IMSC 1.2 History

     [22] https://www.w3.org/standards/history/ttml-imsc1.2/


   Atsushi: It was a Rec in 2020, but in that era the system for
   HR was under development

   Pierre: I found it. It was an email from Nigel on October 16
   2019

   <pal> "Request a11y review of IMSC 1.2"

   <atsushi> [23]https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tt/

   2019Oct/0037.html

     [23] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tt/2019Oct/0037.html


   <pal> [24]https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tt/

   2019Oct/0041.html

     [24] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tt/2019Oct/0041.html


   <atsushi> [25]https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tt/

   2019Oct/0040.html

     [25] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tt/2019Oct/0040.html


   Pierre: I think what I will do is create a template text that
   explains how IMSC 1.3
   … is a minimal change to 1.2, send it to the reflector, which
   should have no surprises,
   … and then I'll submit the FPWD for HR.
   … Unless someone else wants to do it - happy for someone else
   to do it.

   Atsushi: After that the self-review questionnaire has been
   developed and we need to
   … attach our self-review result to the request.

   Pierre: Sure

   <atsushi> [26]https://www.w3.org/guide/

   documentreview/#how-to-get-horizontal-review

     [26] https://www.w3.org/guide/documentreview/#how-to-get-horizontal-review


   Atsushi: There is a not so short list of items in the
   questionnaire!

   Pierre: By the way the questionnaire link is broken

   [27]I just opened this meta issue w3c/imsc#608

     [27] https://github.com/w3c/imsc/issues/608


   Nigel: This has a broken link to the accessibility
   questionnaire too
   … Atsushi, will you follow up on the broken accessibility
   questionnaire link?

   Pierre: I think I found it at [28]https://w3c.github.io/fast/

   checklist.html

     [28] https://w3c.github.io/fast/checklist.html


   Atsushi: I want to believe that is correct

   Nigel: I think I've seen that before as well

   Gary: The broken URL does have "FAST" in it, it just has
   /apa/fast so maybe they moved the repo
   … and forgot to update the links.

   Pierre: What is the policy when you do a minor update to a Rec,
   do you have to do the whole questionnaire again?

   Atsushi: Usually we use the previous result, but this time we
   don't have a previous one
   … so I don't have an exact answer for that.

   Pierre: Okay. I'll just proceed.

   [29]Wide Review request draft text

     [29] https://docs.google.com/document/d/1fP8dX29JZHLkE3M-qExoxj4vK86x-ninXFC9JNt-WWc/edit?tab=t.0


   Pierre: I'll proceed quickly with the HR

   Nigel: And I will also send the WR comms

   Gary: For the checklist, it might be that since it is an
   update, we could just ask APA if
   … we can proceed since it's an update release, without
   completing the full checklist.

   Pierre: How would you go about that?

   Gary: Probably opening an issue - in the Meta Issue there's a
   link to the a11y request repo

   Pierre: I'm recalling that we have a WCAG consideration section
   that we can reference in the spec.
   … We're not designing a UI, so I remember we had a long
   discussion and a lot of the requirements
   … simply don't apply. I will start there.

   Gary: In the check list a lot of these are "If the technology
   provides audio..." which we can skip.

   Pierre: Is the check meant to indicate that you've read it or
   that it applies?

   Gary: I think you check the item if it applies.
   … Based on my minimal review.

   Pierre: I will try to do this.

   Nigel: Ping me if you have any questions

   Pierre: Thanks, this is super helpful, glad we went through
   that.

    IMSC 1.3 streamlined publication

   Atsushi: Do we want to set up streamlined publication?

   Nigel: Yes, that's our default unless anyone objects?

   Atsushi: Any objections?

   Nigel: You can go ahead and do it

   Atsushi: Will do.

   Nigel: The other bullets you added to the comment on this
   meeting's issue - do we need
   … to discuss anything, or can you explain it offline?

   Atsushi: Streamlined publication has two items - one to publish
   to /TR and the other to the
   … gh-pages branch.
   … For IMSC repo we have multiple specs so I don't think we can
   feed gh-pages from another branch
   … so I would keep the main branch as the Editor's Draft and
   configure the streamlined publication
   … to publish the ED to github.io and the latest WD to /TR. They
   should be the same content
   … but with different document status.

   Nigel: OK, that makes sense.

   Atsushi: To be honest we don't really need the ED.
   … If everything is fine I will raise a PR to configure
   everything.

   Pierre: Yes please

   Nigel: Yes
   … Thank you for that.

  Interop 2025 WebVTT goals

   Gary: We'll need to skip this since Dana hasn't joined

  TPAC 2025 planning

   Nigel: Registration is open

   Gary: Opened today I think

   [30]Published schedule

     [30] https://www.w3.org/2025/11/TPAC/schedule.html


   Nigel: The published schedule has a link to registration at the
   top, too
   … Early bird rate of USD370 until 23rd August

  Meeting close

   Nigel: We meet in 2 weeks, on 31st July
   … I can't make the 14th August

   Gary: I am unlikely to be around either, and I can't make the
   31st.

   Nigel: So we're likely to cancel the 14th August call, to be
   confirmed next time.
   … Thank you everyone, see you in a couple of weeks. [adjourns
   meeting]


    Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by
    [31]scribe.perl version 244 (Thu Feb 27 01:23:09 2025 UTC).

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

Received on Thursday, 17 July 2025 16:25:27 UTC