16:00:02 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #tt
16:00:02 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2022/02/03-tt-irc
16:00:05 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
16:00:06 <Zakim> Meeting: Timed Text Working Group Teleconference
16:00:24 <nigel> Present: Nigel
16:00:33 <nigel> Agenda: https://github.com/w3c/ttwg/issues/209
16:00:45 <nigel> Previous meeting: https://www.w3.org/2022/01/20-tt-minutes.html
16:00:50 <nigel> scribe: nigel
16:02:40 <nigel> Present+ Gary, Pierre, Andreas
16:02:45 <nigel> Chair: Gary, Nigel
16:03:13 <atai> atai has joined #tt
16:04:11 <nigel> Topic: This meeting
16:04:50 <nigel> Nigel: Today we have IMSC HRM - Wide Review comms, and HR issues if there are any to discuss
16:05:01 <nigel> .. And Rechartering status.
16:05:07 <nigel> .. Any other business?
16:05:17 <nigel> Present+ Atsushi
16:05:50 <nigel> Atsushi: I believe Philippe will join for the charter discussion.
16:05:55 <nigel> Nigel: Thanks
16:06:00 <nigel> Topic: IMSC HRM
16:06:13 <nigel> Subtopic: Status on HR and WR
16:06:20 <nigel> Present+ Cyril
16:07:08 <nigel> i/Topic/Cyril: We could talk about Dubbing and AD requirements
16:07:21 <nigel> i/Topic/Nigel: OK that'll be an AOB topic
16:08:02 <nigel> Nigel: We completed w3c/imsc-hrm#12 and associated separated-out issues.
16:08:17 <nigel> .. I think we are almost ready with the text to send to ask for Wide Review, and the recipients.
16:09:58 <nigel> .. I sent an email out to the member reflector before the call.
16:10:25 <nigel> .. I was a bit blunt but maybe we can discuss the point about mentioning an implementation, Andreas.
16:10:52 <nigel> Andreas: I think that mentioning the validator would help reviewers.
16:11:17 <nigel> Pierre: I see no harm in mentioning it.
16:11:30 <nigel> .. Reviewing the Privacy folks' comments, a pointer to an implementation might
16:11:35 <nigel> .. help people to understand what it does.
16:11:49 <nigel> .. Just pointing to it as an example might help people understand what the spec is and how it works.
16:12:24 <nigel> Nigel: It's a good point that we got strong feedback asking to explain what IMSC-HRM is and what would run it.
16:12:36 <nigel> Pierre: We can write stuff but an implementation speaks a thousand words.
16:12:44 <nigel> Andreas: This is exactly what I was thinking.
16:13:13 <nigel> Pierre: Instead of writing a long intro that won't be read, it's easy to click a link and see how it works.
16:13:20 <nigel> .. There's no rendering, just validation.
16:13:24 <cyril> cyril has joined #tt
16:13:28 <cyril> rrsagent, pointer
16:13:28 <RRSAgent> See https://www.w3.org/2022/02/03-tt-irc#T16-13-28
16:14:06 <nigel> Nigel: Good points. The HR folk are only going to review the spec, not the implementation,
16:14:19 <nigel> .. so we will have to write some introductory matter to resolve their questions.
16:14:47 <nigel> Pierre: Hopefully we will discuss the HR issues this call.
16:16:41 <nigel> Nigel: I think there's a small tweak to the WR text to explain that the HRM specifies how a validator must work,
16:17:01 <nigel> .. and doesn't in itself do anything.
16:17:07 <nigel> Pierre: Let's not make it more complicated.
16:17:14 <nigel> Present+ Philippe
16:18:07 <nigel> Nigel: Summary: I need to do a small amount of editing to match what we just discussed.
16:18:26 <nigel> .. But do we need to make any spec changes before we request wide review and send this out?
16:18:50 <nigel> Subtopic: HR Issues
16:18:59 <nigel> -> https://github.com/w3c/imsc-hrm/issues IMSC-HRM issues
16:19:51 <nigel> Nigel: There's a common theme of needing better introductory/explanatory text.
16:19:59 <nigel> .. I don't think #30 is a real issue, just needs explaining.
16:20:07 <nigel> Pierre: Agree, #30 doesn't seem to be an issue.
16:21:29 <nigel> Nigel: OK, so I think the question is Do we need to do the explanatory informative text changes before requesting WR
16:21:37 <nigel> .. or do we send as is and add text to the message?
16:21:56 <nigel> Pierre: I don't think we need to make those changes before sending out - the expected recipient will already know IMSC.
16:22:12 <nigel> Nigel: OK, any other thoughts?
16:22:27 <nigel> .. I'm hearing nothing, so will go ahead with the spec as is.
16:22:50 <nigel> .. The other question for WR is the timeline, how long do we give for responses?
16:23:36 <nigel> .. I think 6 weeks is a practical minimum, 8 might be easier for the recipients. Any thoughts?
16:23:46 <nigel> Pierre: I'd err on the side of longer, so .. 8 seems fine.
16:23:57 <nigel> Nigel: Any more bids?
16:24:05 <nigel> ..
16:24:10 <nigel> .. I think we're there, thank you.
16:24:48 <nigel> .. Anyone want to raise any of the issues?
16:25:10 <nigel> Pierre: I'm not super excited by writing an introduction but.. Do you feel it's necessary? Feels like it is.
16:25:26 <nigel> .. I'd like feedback on that before I spend time doing it. Is it needed, what should it contain?
16:25:58 <nigel> Nigel: Yes, I think it is needed, and it doesn't need a lot.
16:26:08 <nigel> Pierre: Maybe a picture that shows where it fits in the overall chain?
16:26:12 <nigel> Nigel: That would be good, yes.
16:26:24 <nigel> .. I was also thinking that the feedback says the implementation model is unclear.
16:26:48 <nigel> .. That can easily be addressed by saying, even in the Abstract, that the specification defines behaviour
16:26:52 <nigel> .. of a validating processor.
16:27:39 <nigel> Pierre: Thanks, I can write that up.
16:27:49 <nigel> Nigel: I think this is the key thing that threw the reviewes.
16:27:54 <nigel> s/wes/wers
16:28:39 <nigel> Andreas: I'm not sure if this is the right time, but there is still this issue we started, #12, for preparing the HR.
16:28:49 <nigel> .. There's a comment about how much customisation is in scope of the HRM
16:28:55 <nigel> .. and if we should add an informative note about it.
16:29:01 <nigel> .. There were responses from Nigel and Pierre.
16:29:07 <nigel> .. It would be good to have a brief conversation about it.
16:29:24 <nigel> Pierre: I think that got lost because it wasn't opened as a separate issue. I missed that when I was reviewing the issues.
16:29:38 <nigel> Andreas: Sorry, I proposed it but you're right I will do that.
16:29:48 <nigel> Pierre: I was not ignoring it, it just fell off my radar.
16:30:01 <nigel> .. If you can open a separate issue and we can address it, that would be awesome.
16:30:09 <nigel> Andreas: Nonetheless we can have a discussion about it.
16:30:29 <nigel> .. The question in general is if customisation of an IMSC document when it is rendered should be taken into
16:30:50 <nigel> .. consideration by an author. Should the author, when creating the document, knowing certain values for styling and customisation,
16:31:05 <nigel> .. test the document against the HRM with those customisation values?
16:31:17 <nigel> .. There are two comments where Nigel and Pierre agree that customisation is not in scope of the HRM.
16:31:33 <nigel> .. But then I think Nigel's comment that in general an informative note would be possible or may help, but
16:31:45 <nigel> .. you do not agree that it is a problem on the authoring side but actually on the side of the implementor.
16:32:09 <nigel> .. The implementor should make sure that every document would pass the HRM together with the customisation options.
16:32:27 <nigel> Nigel: Slight tweak - I would say the implementer has to make sure that every document that passes the HRM plays successfully
16:32:34 <nigel> .. even if customisation options are applied.
16:33:59 <nigel> .. The goal is to ensure a good audience experience that matches the authorial intent.
16:34:12 <nigel> .. The HRM only checks documents as supplied.
16:34:34 <nigel> Andreas: How can an implementer test that their player works with customisations? They need to know what inputs to accept.
16:34:36 <atai> q+
16:34:59 <nigel> Pierre: I would generate maximally complex documents and verify that my software works with each of the customisation options.
16:35:03 <nigel> ack at
16:35:23 <nigel> Andreas: As Nigel said, I had the same idea and that makes total sense, how an implementer would be able to test it.
16:35:31 <nigel> .. I think that is a good way to do it.
16:35:41 <nigel> .. A separate issue we could think about is offering those kinds of test documents.
16:35:51 <nigel> .. My question is maybe answered already.
16:36:06 <nigel> .. If you are in a closed system like the BBC and iPlayer or whatever, and they offer customisation options, the
16:36:18 <nigel> .. documents are authored in the same environment that also decides on the customisation options.
16:36:22 <nigel> .. There's a close link between them.
16:36:44 <nigel> .. Thinking about it, it makes more sense that the implementer ensures that the documents present than that the author does it.
16:37:00 <nigel> Pierre: The maximally complex documents are orthogonal to customisation options because they
16:37:08 <nigel> .. deal with values that are known before rendering.
16:37:25 <nigel> .. Anyone can generate a set of maximally complex documents independently of the customisation options they offer.
16:37:29 <nigel> .. We could offer those documents.
16:37:40 <nigel> .. We could consider that, or at least an example.
16:37:50 <nigel> Nigel: We will have to generate tests at some point.
16:38:49 <nigel> .. By the way, the BBC's iPlayer allows text size customisation but it only ever makes text smaller, so it wouldn't
16:38:56 <nigel> .. cause more complexity under the HRM!
16:39:11 <nigel> Pierre: The world is far from agreeing on customisation options right now.
16:39:18 <nigel> .. Andreas, please could you open an issue.
16:39:21 <nigel> s/./?
16:39:25 <nigel> Andreas: Yes I will do it.
16:39:30 <nigel> Nigel: Thank you.
16:39:57 <nigel> Topic: Rechartering status update
16:40:05 <nigel> Philippe: The Charter has been reviewed by W3M.
16:40:12 <nigel> .. When I was talking with Atsushi there was some confusion.
16:40:18 <nigel> .. Then early last week I went through the comments with him.
16:40:32 <nigel> .. One of the things that is problematic in the proposed charter is related to success criteria.
16:40:37 <nigel> .. They are a bit loosey-goosey.
16:40:39 <plh> plh has joined #tt
16:40:41 <nigel> .. Reminder:
16:40:41 <plh> https://w3c.github.io/charter-timed-text/
16:41:06 <nigel> .. The problem that we have is that it is not clear if we can expect for each normative feature that
16:41:24 <nigel> .. we will have at least two independent implementations.
16:41:31 <nigel> Nigel: Aha, let's do this conversation!
16:42:00 <nigel> Philippe: Section 3.1
16:42:07 <plh> [[
16:42:16 <plh> In order to advance to Proposed Recommendation, each normative specification is expected to have at least two independent implementations of every feature defined in the specification.
16:42:17 <plh> ]]
16:42:41 <nigel> Nigel: Two independent implementations is not a Process requirement, it's on the list of questions the Director will ask.
16:42:58 <nigel> Philippe: That is correct, but if they do not exist then the Director will ask for a good rationale.
16:43:05 <cyril> scribe: cyril
16:43:17 <cyril> nigel: we totally understood that when we wrote this
16:43:23 <cyril> ... this has caused some difficulties in the past
16:43:41 <cyril> ... to push something that seemed reasonable to us through the process
16:44:05 <cyril> ... part of what we did knowingly here when we wrote it in the charter
16:44:24 <cyril> ... we thought that if it met sense for the AC then the Director should be ok with it
16:44:32 <cyril> s/met/made/
16:44:55 <cyril> plh: the sentence that I pasted, can we add that at the beginning of the section?
16:44:57 <cyril> nigel: no
16:45:09 <cyril> ... we have described that interpretation of that sentence and
16:45:27 <cyril> ... the process is confusing as to what is "2 independent implementations"
16:45:49 <cyril> ... and with the way we wrote it, it may be that we'll have 2 implementations
16:45:57 <cyril> plh: but it may not and that's the problem
16:46:44 <cyril> nigel: if independently by 2 separate processors, valid content is created that matches the specifications
16:46:53 <cyril> ... and an implementation matches the specification
16:47:11 <cyril> ... that is demonstrating common understanding of the specification
16:47:17 <cyril> plh: I disagree
16:47:31 <cyril> ... we don't test HTML by saying there is a producer and consumer
16:47:38 <cyril> ... and that is good enough
16:47:47 <cyril> ... I don't claim HTML is tested for everything
16:47:53 <pal> q+\
16:47:57 <pal> q+
16:47:58 <cyril> ... but I think this section is setting the bar too low
16:48:02 <pal> ack \
16:48:26 <cyril> ... we are having debates with the AC to starting REC track when there are not 2 independent implementations
16:48:43 <cyril> ... if you don't want to add the sentence, W3M will discuss but they may not agree
16:48:57 <cyril> nigel: maybe we need to have the conversation with them
16:49:03 <cyril> pal: let's have that discussion
16:49:17 <cyril> ... the fundamental issue is that we are imposing requirements on this group that are not in the process
16:49:36 <cyril> ... and if it's true that the only acceptable criteria for W3C is 2 indep implementations, that should be in the process
16:49:42 <cyril> ... because it's not there right now
16:49:53 <cyril> ... I'll be happy to write up on this
16:50:09 <cyril> nigel: I think it's also worth noting that there is background here
16:50:22 <cyril> ... I raised it in the process before, asking to define it more precisely
16:50:30 <cyril> ... and at every stage, there has been push back
16:50:43 <cyril> ... so it's up to the group to decide and the AC to review
16:51:00 <cyril> ... it's W3M pushing it, I do question if it's the role of W3C
16:51:09 <cyril> plh: the Director is delegating that to W3M
16:51:19 <cyril> ... W3M is not acting in a vaccum
16:51:45 <cyril> pal: do you need a 2nd implementation when it's an open source one
16:52:09 <cyril> ... back in the days, 2 closed-source implementations was good
16:52:20 <cyril> plh: the draft doesn't mention open source
16:52:25 <cyril> nigel: it does, it's very explicit
16:52:39 <cyril> plh: it does not say all features will be covered by that?
16:52:52 <cyril> nigel: is this about all features?
16:53:30 <cyril> plh: the WOFF2 spec was approved as REC and there was a single implementation of it because open source and used by every one
16:53:49 <cyril> nigel: it seems that the objection has narrowed down
16:54:08 <cyril> plh: we always have trouble to define appropriate =implementation experience
16:54:28 <cyril> ... if you tell me there is going to be a common open source implementation used by every one
16:54:34 <cyril> ... that's a different story
16:55:01 <cyril> ... just because Blink implements a feature and is open source does not mean it's sufficient
16:55:12 <cyril> ... the virtue of being open source is not enough
16:55:26 <cyril> ... if it's a reference implementation and used by everyone
16:55:31 <cyril> ... that's better, closer to WOFF2
16:55:45 <cyril> pal: I think we should leave it to what the process says
16:56:02 <cyril> ... but in this case, if it helps to mention that there will be a common open source implementation
16:56:16 <cyril> nigel: does it have to be a reference implementation?
16:56:26 <cyril> plh: open source is enough if used by everybody
16:57:17 <cyril> cyril: it's vague to me
16:57:29 <cyril> plh: on purpose, we don't want to constrain the groups too much
16:57:39 <cyril> ... the starting point is 2 indep implementations
16:57:46 <cyril> ... but it can be modified
16:57:55 <cyril> ... I can only define it by examples
16:58:01 <cyril> ... for example WOFF@
16:58:13 <cyril> s/@/2
16:58:38 <cyril> nigel: pal is suggesting we meet with W3M
16:58:46 <cyril> nigel: gkatsev any thoughts?
16:58:57 <cyril> gkatsev: nothing to add
16:59:03 <cyril> gkatsev: I agree with you nigel
16:59:14 <cyril> nigel: I'll happily have the conversation with W3M
16:59:23 <cyril> ... what's the minimum changes to make W3M happy
16:59:35 <cyril> plh: I will have the conversation, I understand better the story
16:59:48 <cyril> ... there is going to be one implementation that everybody will use
17:00:02 <cyril> ... I will talk to Ralph to see what changes he suggests
17:00:46 <cyril> ... I can gave you an example of a spec blocked despite having many implementations
17:01:03 <cyril> nigel: was there anything else?
17:01:20 <cyril> plh: the media wg is not listed in the W3C groups? should it be a dependency?
17:01:27 <cyril> nigel: good point, we can add that easily
17:04:09 <nigel> Topic: Meeting close
17:04:20 <nigel> Nigel: Thanks everyone, we're slightly over time. [adjourns meeting]
17:31:15 <nigel> rrsagent, make minutes
17:31:15 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2022/02/03-tt-minutes.html nigel
17:38:33 <nigel> s/implementor/implementer/g
17:40:07 <nigel> s/?. Andreas, please could you open an issue./.. Andreas, please could you open an issue?
17:40:57 <nigel> s/2 separate processors/2 separate processes
17:41:15 <nigel> s/ack \//
17:41:41 <nigel> s/REC track when there are not 2 independent implementations/REC track when there are not 2 independent commitments to implement
17:42:04 <nigel> s/2 indep implementations/2 independent implementations
17:42:33 <nigel> s/it's W3M pushing it, I do question if it's the role of W3C/if it's W3M pushing it, I do question if it's the role of W3M
17:43:00 <nigel> s/the Director is delegating that to W3M/the Director is delegating the submission of Charters to AC to W3M
17:43:42 <nigel> s/it does, it's very explicit/it does, it's very explicit in the last sentence of §3.1
17:44:08 <nigel> s/=implementation /implementation
17:44:37 <nigel> s/indep /independent
17:45:05 <nigel> s/I can gave you/I can give you
17:45:22 <nigel> scribe+ nigel
17:45:28 <nigel> rrsagent, make minutes
17:45:28 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2022/02/03-tt-minutes.html nigel
17:46:14 <nigel> i/Nigel: Thanks/scribe: nigel
17:46:16 <nigel> rrsagent, make minutes
17:46:16 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2022/02/03-tt-minutes.html nigel
17:46:41 <nigel> s/implementationexperience/implementation experience
17:47:41 <nigel> scribeOptions: -final -noEmbedDiagnostics
17:47:45 <nigel> zakim, end meeting
17:47:45 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been Nigel, Gary, Pierre, Andreas, Atsushi, Cyril, Philippe
17:47:47 <Zakim> RRSAgent, please draft minutes v2
17:47:47 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2022/02/03-tt-minutes.html Zakim
17:47:50 <Zakim> I am happy to have been of service, nigel; please remember to excuse RRSAgent.  Goodbye
17:47:54 <Zakim> Zakim has left #tt
17:57:54 <nigel> rrsagent, excuse us
17:57:54 <RRSAgent> I see no action items