Meeting minutes
This meeting
Nigel: Light agenda today - TTML2, TPAC and TTML Profiles Registry
… Any points to make sure we cover, or any other business?
group: [no other business]
TTML2 2nd Edition
Nigel: I noticed a change to the IR recently, by Glenn. Any other discussion points on this?
… We have a placeholder for ttml2#1211 if anyone has anything to raise?
group: [no points to discuss on that at this time]
Virtual TPAC 2020 Planning
Nigel: I think we're good in terms of meeting times.
… And I see TPAC registration is now open.
<atsushi> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35125/TPAC2020/
Nigel: Please do register!
… It's free this year.
… Any queries about any of our joint meetings?
group: [no queries]
TTML Profiles Registry
Nigel: I merged the open pull request yesterday so our favourite perennial #71 is now closed.
Mike: I haven't opened the PR for #76 yet but I will.
Nigel: And the other open issue is for the reference to TTML 1, which cites 2nd Ed instead of 3rd Ed.
Mike: I think that's editorial.
Nigel: Formally, I'm not sure if it's editorial, but the change is the right thing to do anyway.
Cyril: Piece of information on the profile registry. ISO BMFF part 12, 6th Edition should get
… published soon. When it gets published, it now defines the codecs parameter, so you
… should expect a change to RFC6381, so I don't know if this will impact our registry.
Nigel: Will part 12 be publicly available at no cost?
Cyril: Yes
… But the base syntax for codecs is not moving, only the meaning of the parameter in
… the context of MP4. It's only the note about where the codecs parameter is defined for MP4
… that might change.
… I don't think it's a big deal.
Nigel: So to clarify, the syntax reference to the RFC will not need to change?
Cyril: I don't think so.
Nigel: Thanks, that's good information.
Cyril: One other thing - the status of the registry says Editor's Draft. Is there another
… type of document we could use?
Nigel: The one on TR?
Cyril: No, the TR one is WG Note.
Nigel: That's what I expect
Cyril: So we expect to update the TR version?
Nigel: Yes, the only formal process is we need to resolve to do it.
Atsushi: Yes we just need WG consensus.
Nigel: I think we should aim to do that as soon as we can, practically.
… I'm not sure what people think of publishing every time a pull request gets changed?
… The lag between e.g. adding the 4cc for IMSC 1.2 and publishing is something I would like to reduce.
<atsushi> https://www.w3.org/TR/clreq/
Cyril: Can we point TR at the ED?
Atsushi: No, we can publish a WG Note Draft like the link above.
… It is updated on the 1st day of every month, by copying from the ED
Nigel: I'm not sure if it helps to have another version of the document that is not the official one.
Atsushi: It's just for information, this option is available.
Nigel: I understand.
Nigel: How do you feel about the idea of publishing a WG Note every time we merge a pull
… request into the ED?
Cyril: I think it's a good idea
Nigel: If we wanted to do that, what would we have to do to make it happen?
Atsushi: There's no requirement, so we can just record the CfC here.
Nigel: I meant mechanically, can we trigger an action to update TR
Atsushi: No, someone would have to trigger echidna, but a link to the resolution of consensus
… is required to run it.
Nigel: I think I'm arguing that we have enough process in the WG that agreeing to merge
… the pull request into gh-pages counts as consensus, but I can see there's risk associated
… with this approach as well.
… Anyway right now I think we should be aiming to get these last two issues resolved as
… soon as we can and then resolve to publish.
Meeting close
Nigel: We've completed our agenda. Thank you everyone. [adjourns meeting]