{Minutes} TTWG Teleconference 2026-02-26

Thanks all for joining today’s TTWG meeting. Minutes can be found in HTML format at https://www.w3.org/2026/02/26-tt-minutes.html


Please note that during our 2 upcoming March meetings Daylight Savings Time will apply in North America, making the meeting time 1 hour later there.

I propose that after DST comes into action in Europe at the end of March we adjust the UTC time of the calls by -1 hour.

In plain text:

   [1]W3C

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


                Timed Text Working Group Teleconference

26 February 2026

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

      [2] https://www.w3.org/2026/02/12-tt-minutes.html

      [3] https://github.com/w3c/ttwg/issues/328

      [4] https://www.w3.org/2026/02/26-tt-irc


Attendees

   Present
          Atsushi, Cyril, Nigel, Pierre

   Regrets
          Andreas, Gary

   Chair
          Nigel

   Scribe
          nigel

Contents

    1. [5]This meeting
    2. [6]Improve the ja character set per ARIB feedback
       w3c/imsc#614
    3. [7]IMSC 1.3 next steps
    4. [8]DAPT Implementation Report
    5. [9]March meeting times
    6. [10]Meeting close

Meeting minutes

  This meeting

   Nigel: We have a bit on DAPT - just the implementation report.
   … and on IMSC we just need to cover the ja character set

   Pierre: Agree, we need to figure that out.

   Nigel: In AOB we have meeting times in March when its DST in
   north America, but not in Europe.
   … Anything else for the agenda, or to make sure we cover?

   no other business

  Improve the ja character set per ARIB feedback [11]w3c/imsc#614

     [11] https://github.com/w3c/imsc/issues/614


   github: [12]w3c/imsc#614

     [12] https://github.com/w3c/imsc/pull/614


   Nigel: We had some good input that we processed last meeting.
   What's the status?

   Pierre: [shares screen showing preview of the pull request]
   … Atsushi, what do you suggest?

   Atsushi: ARIB TR document is some sort of operational manual
   which records the current situation.
   … It is not normative.
   … It could be changed.

   Pierre: Remove the TR-B39 sequence?

   Atsushi: Maybe just note that these are operationally used but
   not normative.

   Pierre: suggests removing the explicit list and just
   referencing TR-B39

   Atsushi: the note also could apply to CJK ideographic
   characters

   Pierre: Make the reference to the ARIB TR a note?

   Atsushi: Yes something like that, or suggest that IVS is used
   for CJK and operationally used IVSes are
   … used in ARIB.

   Pierre: What's the down side of referencing ARIB-TR-B39?

   Atsushi: It's a link from normative text to a non-normative
   document.

   Pierre: The entire annex is just a SHOULD not a SHALL.

   Atsushi: SHOULD is normative too.

   Pierre: It's useful though.

   Atsushi: Yes, useful but the normative definition in ARIB STD
   is that IVS may be used, but operationally
   … characters listed in ARIB TR are the ones currently used.

   Pierre: Exactly.

   Atsushi: That's why I'm afraid that the TR definition may be
   changed, so I want to turn that part into a non-normative note.

   Pierre: Sure, [makes edit that the IVS is a Note.]

   Pierre: Nigel, are you happy with this?

   Nigel: Yes. Are there any other issues related to the ARIB ja
   character set that we should be covering off here?

   Pierre: [checks] I don't think so

   Atsushi: Yes

   Nigel: Great, let's go for it then.

   Pierre: [pushes the change]

   Nigel: The note about 10646 and Unicode - why is that in the ja
   section? Oh, because it's only referenced in the ja character
   set

   Pierre: That's right

   Atsushi: There are corrections that are only in the ISO spec.
   … I approved the PR

   Nigel: I approved it too

   Pierre: I have to fix the merge conflicts then I'll merge the
   PR.

   SUMMARY: PR to be merged.

  IMSC 1.3 next steps

   Nigel: I think there's nothing more to do?

   Pierre: Yes I think we're done

   Nigel: So the Implementation Report is empty as expected.
   … I can't recall when the exclusion period ends.

   <atsushi> [13]https://www.w3.org/guide/transitions/

   milestones.html?cr=2025-12-16

     [13] https://www.w3.org/guide/transitions/milestones.html?cr=2025-12-16


   Atsushi: The exclusion period has ended. We need an
   implementation report and consensus for advancing,
   … and AC review.

   [14]IMSC 1.3 Implementation Report

     [14] https://www.w3.org/wiki/TimedText/IMSC1_3_Implementation_Report


   Nigel: The next step is for me to issue a call for consensus to
   request transition to Rec on this basis,
   … when the last pull request has been merged.

   Atsushi: If we can issue a CfC within this week and have a
   resolution in two weeks that could help me
   … because I may possibly be offline for a while in the later
   half of March.

   Nigel: OK I'll aim to do that.

   Pierre: PR Preview just started to work!

   Nigel: Amazing, we can close off that other issue then.

   Pierre: What do you need from me?

   Nigel: I don't think anything - do we need to prep a Rec
   version?

   Atsushi: I believe you can use the /TR version for the CfC

   Nigel: That's what I expect.

  DAPT Implementation Report

   [15]DAPT Implementation Report

     [15] https://www.w3.org/wiki/TimedText/DAPT_Implementation_Report


   Cyril: We've now implemented #daptOriginTimecode

   Nigel: That's great.
   … I've updated the IR with the new BBC validator link

   Nigel: For the #daptOriginTimecode were you able to validate
   it?

   Cyril: Not yet - does your validator check it?

   Nigel: Yes it does

   Cyril: OK I can give it a try or you can

   Nigel: From the Charter, there is some text we can lean on.

   [16]Charter Success Criteria

     [16] https://www.w3.org/2025/06/timed-text-wg-charter.html#success-criteria


   Nigel: I'm proposing to bring some of that wording into the IR
   as explanation, and separately list the
   … different kinds of implementation that we have examples for.
   … Hopefully that allows us to tell the story a bit more
   clearly.
   … Does that makes sense?

   Cyril: Sure, yes.

   Nigel: Anything else for us to cover on DAPT?

   Cyril: How are you thinking about resolving the last features
   that are not yet interoperable?

   Nigel: What are they?

   Cyril: The at risk features where we wanted implementation
   feedback

   Nigel: Those are two different things.
   … The last non-interop feature in the IR is
   #xmlLang-audio-nonMatching which is fairly minor.
   … We either wait for an implementation that supports it,
   … or we explain how there's no behaviour defined except for a
   validator, and propose advancing with an exception based on the
   scale of the issue.
   … (which is tiny)
   … For the at-risk features, that's different. Ideally I would
   like to have more input.
   … We could try to choose a minimum viable set and add in extra
   options if people ask for them.
   … Or we could include all the options and put a note on saying
   that we may prune some of them in future
   … versions based on usage and practice.
   … I think as a rule choosing the minimum set and adding more
   later is better.

   Cyril: I agree, it minimises the tests and implementation tasks
   too.

   Nigel: OK the action is on me to go to AD providers and double
   check with them what their
   … preference is for including or referencing audio recordings.

   Cyril: We could think also about workflows.
   … If someone delivers to you a script and audio assets, how
   would that work?
   … Do you have a way to receive multiple linked assets somehow?

   Nigel: Good question

   Cyril: Pierre being here reminds me of IMF where there's a
   manifest and a set of assets.
   … You could supply a zip of all the assets for example,
   … or include all the audio base64 encoded.
   … Maybe the solution is to provide both and then see what
   companies want to receive and what vendors support.

   Nigel: That's a good thought process to go through. I will
   check in with my colleagues in media supply as well,
   … because they likely have preferences here.
   … It is true that managing single files is easier if possible.
   … But then, how can you validate that a zip includes all the
   audio files referenced by the DAPT, say?
   … Maybe that's another kind of validation.

   Cyril: Right, and if you receive a zip and need to store it in
   the asset management system, that's one thing.
   … But if you have references you have the problem of what they
   are relative to, what URL to put.
   … If you put it in a zip file it can be relative to the path of
   the document.
   … But if it gets stored in the MAM you have to replace the URL
   with something, an identifier or something
   … like a proprietary URL.

   Nigel: Yes that could be a problem.

   Cyril: Do we care about playback of these files or just
   transmission between a creator and a receiver?
   … One of the use cases is sending to a client device for local
   mixing.
   … The technical requirements for sending the audio may be
   different than from sending it to a platform.

   Nigel: Yes, it may, that's right.
   … There are a few approaches.
   … One is to use relative URLs
   … Another is to create a single audio track and use range
   identifiers
   … like clipBegin and clipEnd which are already available.

   Cyril: or byte ranges
   … It seems to me that it's hard for us to pick A or B, we have
   to support both because different people will
   … have different ways of doing things.

   Nigel: [iterates through the at risk issues]
   … For the values of encoding, I think we can just choose one -
   presumably base64 would be the one.

   Cyril: Yes it is the most deployed one.

   Nigel: For the length attribute on data we can simply keep it
   because it's useful

   Cyril: for the referencing of resources, we could take the
   approach of requiring <source> but restricting
   … the number to 1 for now, with the option to add more later.

   Nigel: That would work, yes.
   … Would work for both embedded and external
   … Or we could prohibit the src attribute and allow any number
   of <source> elements and leave it to
   … implementations how to deal with them.

  March meeting times

   Nigel: The proposal is to keep the current UTC time for our two
   meetings in March,
   … so that this call is an hour later in local time in north
   America.

   Cyril: Sure that works.

   Nigel: OK let's do that, it keeps things the same everywhere
   else.

  Meeting close

   Nigel: Thanks all, we're at time, let's adjourn.

   [17]Next meeting is 2026-03-12 1600 UTC

     [17] https://github.com/w3c/ttwg/issues/329


   Nigel: [adjourns meeting]


    Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by
    [18]scribe.perl version 248 (Mon Oct 27 20:04:16 2025 UTC).

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

Received on Thursday, 26 February 2026 17:13:49 UTC