Meeting minutes
This meeting
Nigel: Today, quick update on IMSC HRM Wide Review
… then Rechartering status update, and
Nigel: Dubbing and AD requirements.
… Is there any other business or topic to make sure we cover?
[no other business]
<calvaris> Hi, I'm Xabier Rodríguez (aka calvaris), from Igalia. I work on the WebKit GStreamer ports
Nigel: Xabier, welcome, I think this is your first call, great to have you here with us.
… When you get your membership of the group confirmed, please send an email to member-tt@w3.org with
… a quick introduction just so we can verify that everything is set up properly.
… And welcome to Igalia too.
IMSC HRM Wide Review
Nigel: Quick update: we're happy with the wide review comms wording,
… but since we received quite strong feedback about the way the spec is introduced
… and the purpose of it seems to need better explanation,
<atsushi_> (sorry for late cut in, but please tell your AC rep for approval.. Igalia itself is already in this TTWG as organization.)
Nigel: I wasn't happy to send the WR comms out before we have made some editorial improvements
… to help address those comments.
… Otherwise, my prediction is that we will get similar mis-comprehension from others, and that would not be helpful.
… That's why Pierre is working on updates rather than being here!
… Any questions or thoughts on that?
[no questions]
<atsushi_> +1 for updates before sending wide review requests
Dubbing and AD requirements
Nigel: This is actually related to the Charter in that it affects our plan of work.
… Cyril and I have been talking offline and agreed to work together on a single TTML2 profile for both AD and Dubbing.
… I sent a message to the AD Community Group, which is at https://
… Just to keep them in the loop and see if there were any comments or feedback.
Cyril: [shares screen]
… This is a merge of the AD profile requirements and the Dubbing workflow requirements
… from the work that Netflix has been doing.
… The current title is Requirements for the Movie Translation Dubbing and Audio description profile of TTML2 (MTDA).
… I had some feedback that it's too long!
Nigel: We can change it.
Cyril: It's capturing the requirements.
… The first thing we did is come up with a combined workflow.
… The AD CG came up with a workflow diagram.
… The Netflix TTAL blog post had another diagram,
… so we came up with a combined diagram.
… It starts with AV content.
… Then identify times, for dubbing, dialog times, for AD, the gaps where there are opportunities.
… Step 2 is authoring of text, in one case describing the images for AD,
… in the other, producing the dubbing text by transcribing, then translating, then adjusting.
… Step 3 is audio rendering, by recording an actor or synthesising.
… Step 4 is mixing the audio.
… Step 5 is editing the script to match the performance.
… What's in scope is the green boxes.
… Then just like the AD profile, after the workflow there's a description of the steps and the requirements
… associated with each step.
… We followed the same approach.
… Then we have the requirements.
… Nigel and I are still going through that, then we will produce a document. Is it a Note?
Nigel: Yes, the requirements can be a WG Note.
Cyril: Any other question?
Andreas: It looks very good, and good to see the two activities align, as it should be.
… Nigel, the AD work would then end up in this new specification or profile, right?
… And there will not be a separate document?
Nigel: Yes, that's the intention.
… I think this is a good move because it increases the target community of users,
… and that I think makes it more likely to get more implementations.
… They're so close that I feel it's obvious that they should be together. I may be proven wrong in the future!
Andreas: Do you have a rough feeling about what you want in terms of the timeline
… for a FPWD of the specification document as opposed to the requirements.
Cyril: I expect the requirements to be done in 2-3 weeks, and I don't expect any issues.
… We can always refine them afterwards.
… For the spec, it's a good question. I think the FPWD could come pretty early, maybe within 2 months from now?
Nigel: Yes, I agree, mid-May would be my hopeful cut-off, since I have 3 weeks vacation then!
… I think most of the substantive parts of the spec will be pulled from TTML2 features, so not too difficult.
… The thing that will take some thought and consideration is where we source the metadata vocabulary
… to support the workflow parts.
… In terms of actions, I think we need a repo per document,
… so one for the requirements and one for the spec.
Cyril: If we remove Movie Translation then we get DAPT for Dubbing and Audio description Profile of TTML2.
Nigel: Googling that...
… Just Dual anti-platelet therapy. I think that's sufficiently different.
… Happy to go with that. Any other thoughts about that?
PROPOSAL: Call this new thing DAPT for Dubbing and Audio description Profiles of TTML2
Nigel: Any objections?
Andreas: No, it's good
Cyril: Maybe we should open it up to others not on the call - we don't have to decide it right now.
Nigel: I'll highlight it in the minutes.
… Atsushi can I ask you to make the repos when we know the name of it?
Atsushi: OK, yes.
Nigel: We'll leave ADPT as is and move the work to DAPT.
… Any other questions or thoughts on this?
<atsushi_> filed a tracker
Gary: ADPT could link to DAPT when that exists.
Cyril: Yes we should add a link to ADPT saying the work is superseded by DAPT.
Gary: Exactly, yes.
Nigel: Good idea.
… That will be one for me to do I suspect.
… Thanks for that Cyril, everyone.
Rechartering status update
Atsushi: I will briefly show the update.
… The draft charter is approved by W3M with two possible updates.
… One is a choice because there's been some strong conversation about license within AC and W3M.
… It might be better to switch to the Software and Document License.
… The second is a request to add the ADPT work, or now, DAPT, as one potential item for profiles of TTML2.
Nigel: It is already there - do you need an actual deliverable?
Atsushi: There's no link there. It's just mentioned as an example application.
Nigel: OK, so the action is to add a link?
Atsushi: Yes, maybe DAPT is better?
Nigel: Yes
Atsushi: Let me add a link to DAPT for the newly created repository and maybe we should
… prepare some basic content like a README before submitting to AC Review.
Nigel: Yes
Atsushi: Let me open a pull request.
Nigel: OK, thank you.
… We haven't got everybody here for this but we should spend a bit of time thinking about the license question.
… I've been doing a bit of digging here.
… There are two W3C licences that can be used for Rec track documents.
… The first, the Document License, is what we have used everywhere up until now.
… It is less permissive for spec text reuse than the Software and Document License.
… The concern as I understand it is that there's some possibility of W3C changing as an entity and
… the desire is to be able to ensure that somehow work can definitely continue on specifications published
… with copyright assigned to W3C as it is now.
… My understanding is that in the past we chose the less permissive licence because
… it is one tool for preventing spec forking, which could obviously be quite disruptive.
… However Philippe has in the past assured us that other mechanisms exist that he would prefer to use.
… I think that's where the debate lies.
… It's also worth saying that the W3C Counsel, Wendy, has stated that she thinks the risk associated
… with the Document license is very low.
… I'm not in favour of change but happy to represent the WG's views.
Andreas: Did she say the risk is with the Document license not the software license?
Nigel: Yes, that's right
Andreas: And she said the risk is low?
Nigel: Yes, I'm not sure what W3M's view is, this view that people should change to the software license
… was put forward by Mark Nottingham, who is not in W3M.
Andreas: And the spec forking concern: is that really a concern still, that someone would fork a TTML spec or one of the profiles?
Nigel: By the way, also WebVTT, as it is now, which surprised me.
Andreas: I thought it had the CG license still, Gary.
Gary: I'm not sure.
Nigel: It's not easy to find. The line above the Abstract tells you the "document use" restrictions, and when you click on that
… in WebVTT you get to the Document License.
Gary: The GitHub version is the CG license, but the w3.org one is the Document License.
Nigel: Possibly there's a problem there!
Gary: I think that might be fine.
Nigel: I'm not clear on that. My expectation was it would be the Software and Document license, from my recollection.
Gary: What does it take to change it? Do we just have to say that we're changing it?
Nigel: Yes, we just make a resolution to do it.
… We currently have a line in the Charter that says we can choose, per spec.
Andreas: I'm not sure of the views of others, but in general I think the more permissive the better.
… I don't see a risk with the more permissive license.
… I think the Software and Document License is close to the other licenses that are used, so
… it is easier to understand the rules from the start.
Gary: Yes, it looks a lot like the MIT X11 license that is popular on the web.
Nigel: The question for us now is do we change the Charter to specify the Software and Document License,
… or keep it as is where we can choose on a per-specification basis.
Andreas: Question about what Atsushi said - you said there have been discussions in W3M,
… and that W3M thinks it is better to switch? Is it one person requesting that or more general?
Atsushi: I believe the status is that some AC Reps are raising issues [when the Document license is used]
… so we may have some formal objections to the Charter if we continue with the current text.
<calvaris> I agree with Andreas, the more permissive, the better, in my humble opinion
Nigel: Even though it does allow us to use either? It's untested.
Atsushi: The discussion is to limit only to the Software and Document License, so if we point to other choices
… then I suppose we may be subject to a Formal Objection.
Nigel: I think we have raised awareness today, and I would like to know more about
… what the Formal Objectors think about our current wording.
Atsushi: Of course we can wait to hear what people will say.
Nigel: Going back to the top, is the W3M approval conditional on the changes,
… or are these changes just ones they would prefer to see?
Atsushi: Closer to "conditional" I would think.
… Of course there is also the point that we are asking about CR exit criteria,
… which may also come up in AC review.
Nigel: So W3M decided to leave that wording as is, after our discussion last call?
Atsushi: Yes, W3M decided it can go ahead.
… But maybe there is a risk of some potential conversation in AC review.
Nigel: I think we welcome that because we know we're doing something different.
Nigel: Any last points? We're nearly at time for today.
Atsushi: I will prepare the repositories and raise a PR for adding to the draft charter, and then
… prepare the AC review templates, possibly next Monday.
Nigel: OK, thank you.
Meeting close
Nigel: We're at time, let's adjourn for today. Thank you everyone. [adjourns meeting]