IRC log of tt on 2022-05-12

Timestamps are in UTC.

14:58:27 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #tt
14:58:27 [RRSAgent]
logging to https://www.w3.org/2022/05/12-tt-irc
14:58:30 [Zakim]
RRSAgent, make logs Public
14:58:31 [Zakim]
Meeting: Timed Text Working Group Teleconference
14:58:33 [atai]
atai has joined #tt
15:00:38 [nigel]
scribe: nigel
15:00:41 [nigel]
Agenda: https://github.com/w3c/ttwg/issues/217
15:00:51 [nigel]
nigel has changed the topic to: Next TTWG call 2022-05-12 1500 UTC. Agenda: https://github.com/w3c/ttwg/issues/217
15:01:00 [nigel]
Previous meeting: https://www.w3.org/2022/04/28-tt-minutes.html
15:01:16 [nigel]
Present: Andreas, Gary, Nigel, Xabier
15:01:22 [nigel]
Chair: Gary, Nigel
15:03:44 [nigel]
Topic: This meeting
15:03:50 [nigel]
Present+ Pierre
15:03:59 [pal]
pal has joined #tt
15:04:09 [nigel]
Nigel: Today, we have a quick update on DAPT-REQs
15:04:13 [nigel]
Present+ Cyril
15:04:20 [nigel]
.. TPAC Planning
15:04:25 [cyril]
cyril has joined #tt
15:04:35 [nigel]
.. Rechartering,
15:05:11 [nigel]
.. We also have TT in low latency, and Behaviour with controls. Drop them, or is there something to discuss?
15:05:18 [nigel]
Gary: Can probably drop them
15:05:20 [nigel]
Nigel: OK
15:05:31 [nigel]
.. Any other business, or points to make sure we cover?
15:05:41 [nigel]
No other business
15:05:47 [nigel]
Topic: DAPT REQs
15:05:58 [nigel]
Nigel: We now have published the draft WG note, at
15:06:13 [nigel]
-> https://www.w3.org/TR/2022/DNOTE-dapt-reqs-20220510/ DAPT-REQs DNOTE
15:06:32 [nigel]
.. And I saw that Atsushi merged the pull request that means whenever
15:06:44 [nigel]
.. we merge a pull request to the default branch, it will trigger republication automatically.
15:07:00 [nigel]
.. So as agreed, any PR on that document is considered a Call for Consensus.
15:07:08 [nigel]
.. Just like with IMSC-HRM.
15:08:00 [nigel]
.. I've prepared a blog post about it which Cyril has kindly looked over.
15:08:02 [nigel]
.. Thank you.
15:08:21 [nigel]
.. This is just something Chairs can do, so after this call I'll give it another look over and then publish.
15:08:31 [nigel]
.. It's basically a call to action to review and contribute.
15:08:59 [nigel]
Andreas: General question about the DAPT profile:
15:09:08 [nigel]
.. Is there any relationship to IMSC?
15:09:24 [nigel]
.. I understand it will be similar to IMSC, and written in the same style.
15:09:37 [nigel]
.. Any intent to take IMSC as a reference for the features included or excluded?
15:10:01 [nigel]
Cyril: The intent is not necessarily to represent something that can be rendered directly [visually]
15:10:11 [nigel]
.. but there's an option to be able to associate styles and rendering with content.
15:10:26 [nigel]
.. Two links with IMSC. One is that the structural constraints in terms of timing,
15:10:39 [nigel]
.. attribute restrictions etc will be based on the same thing.
15:10:56 [nigel]
.. Then for visual rendering, we want to base those semantics on IMSC too.
15:11:07 [nigel]
.. It should be possible, if the author of the script also provides rendering indications then
15:11:13 [nigel]
.. it should be easy to produce IMSC subtitles.
15:11:21 [nigel]
Andreas: That makes sense, thanks.
15:12:02 [nigel]
Present+ Atsushi
15:12:08 [nigel]
Nigel: I was going to say something similar.
15:12:17 [nigel]
.. We may get some comments about timebase, I'm not sure,
15:12:38 [nigel]
.. but I think we start with the position of media time only.
15:14:13 [nigel]
.. I think the next stage is to start drafting the specification.
15:14:21 [nigel]
Cyril: Yes, the action is for me.
15:14:36 [nigel]
Nigel: Any more on this topic?
15:14:37 [nigel]
No
15:14:42 [nigel]
Topic: TPAC Planning
15:15:10 [nigel]
Nigel: Gary, will you be able to fill in the form for the Chairs?
15:15:11 [nigel]
Gary: Yes
15:17:22 [nigel]
Nigel: [runs through list of questions]
15:17:31 [nigel]
.. Agenda topics? At the least, DAPT.
15:17:37 [nigel]
Cyril: If we have a meeting, I can show up.
15:17:40 [nigel]
Nigel: Me too
15:17:55 [nigel]
.. Any other likely attendees in person?
15:18:11 [nigel]
Pierre: If there's something interesting on the agenda, then covid permitting I will be there,
15:18:18 [nigel]
.. completely driven by agenda for me.
15:18:29 [nigel]
Nigel: Thank you. Any more?
15:19:04 [nigel]
.. In that case, for now, in-person is 3 for the form.
15:19:25 [nigel]
.. Any constraints on days or times?
15:19:31 [nigel]
Pierre: What are the dates?
15:19:36 [nigel]
Gary: September 12-16
15:20:04 [nigel]
Pierre: IBC is concurrent, so for me,
15:20:11 [nigel]
Cyril: IBC is 9-12
15:20:26 [nigel]
Pierre: Right, so at the earliest, 14th allowing for travel, for anyone there.
15:20:40 [nigel]
.. Preference is more towards the end of the week than the beginning.
15:20:51 [nigel]
Nigel: That's a useful data point - it may affect others too.
15:22:21 [nigel]
.. Next question is about group overlap and joint meetings
15:22:31 [nigel]
.. Maybe Media WG because of controls?
15:22:35 [nigel]
Gary: Yes
15:22:59 [nigel]
Cyril: Interested in both Media WG and TTWG so would like to avoid non-deliberate overlap,
15:23:08 [nigel]
.. but also having meetings close in time/day would be useful
15:23:22 [nigel]
Gary: Same here
15:23:34 [nigel]
.. Any other groups to avoid overlap with?
15:23:46 [nigel]
Nigel: Sounds like a no
15:24:06 [nigel]
Andreas: There's the MEIG - would not be good to overlap
15:24:10 [nigel]
Nigel: Good point
15:24:26 [nigel]
Gary: That's already likely to avoid overlap because Chris can't attend both at the same time
15:24:42 [nigel]
Nigel: One from me: I've suggested to the Audio Description Community Group that we should
15:25:00 [nigel]
.. hold a meeting, the intent is to gather input and build momentum for DAPT amongst non-TTWG people.
15:25:13 [nigel]
.. (and maybe non-W3C members too)
15:26:46 [nigel]
.. From a time of day perspective, I think we need to support
15:26:57 [nigel]
.. Vancouver, Europe and Japan, based on the responses so far.
15:27:13 [nigel]
Atsushi: I don't think there's a sweet spot for Vancouver and Japan
15:27:22 [nigel]
Gary: We may have to do it early in the day
15:28:12 [nigel]
Nigel: Any other events of interest?
15:28:18 [nigel]
.. Technical plenary with high level presentations
15:28:27 [nigel]
nobody
15:28:37 [nigel]
Nigel: I quite like that, myself
15:28:42 [nigel]
.. Demos
15:28:51 [nigel]
nobody
15:28:58 [nigel]
Nigel: Hackathon
15:29:04 [nigel]
nobody
15:29:18 [nigel]
Nigel: Workshop
15:29:37 [nigel]
Pierre: Just a thought - TTML and WebVTT are used by a large number of people.
15:29:47 [nigel]
.. Which is awesome. Very few of them are in this group.
15:30:09 [nigel]
.. One option, to increase in-person meeting value, is to ask the question beyond this group.
15:30:22 [nigel]
.. Are there hot topics? We could try to have a workshop with users.
15:30:30 [nigel]
.. Lots more work but more productive and fulfilling.
15:30:47 [nigel]
.. Want to throw that out. If we want to try to answer bigger questions or make
15:30:56 [nigel]
.. progress on larger issues, we should cast the net beyond this group.
15:31:03 [nigel]
Nigel: Really good point.
15:31:18 [nigel]
Gary: To add, a lot of those larger issues apply equally to TTML/IMSC and WebVTT
15:31:26 [nigel]
.. even if the implementation details might be different.
15:31:36 [nigel]
Pierre: Totally agree, a lot of it is people coming to terms with Timed Text
15:31:46 [nigel]
.. Maybe TPAC is an opportunity.
15:32:36 [nigel]
Nigel: OK let's tick the Workshop box and bear this in mind. I can see it may well be worth the effort.
15:32:53 [nigel]
.. Next one is Developer Meetup in the evening including local community
15:33:04 [nigel]
nobody
15:33:15 [nigel]
Nigel: Training overview on W3C technologies
15:33:22 [nigel]
nobody
15:33:28 [nigel]
Nigel: Any others not mentioned?
15:33:40 [nigel]
None
15:33:49 [nigel]
Nigel: Thanks. Gary, have you got everything you need?
15:34:02 [nigel]
Gary: I think so. Still unsure about timing, but I think we don't have to be specific yet.
15:34:22 [nigel]
Nigel: True - also worth noting the locations of likely meetings.
15:34:38 [nigel]
Gary: They also ask about meeting outside regular meeting hours, which I think we would have to do.
15:34:48 [nigel]
Pierre: Atsushi, how likely are you to be able to travel?
15:35:34 [nigel]
Atsushi: For now, quite unlikely due to requirements for re-entering Japan, unless they are relaxed.
15:35:59 [nigel]
.. Please set the meeting time for convenience at the venue - I should adjust in any case.
15:36:18 [nigel]
Pierre: Let's say that we have a workshop. I think we might actually want to avoid having a group meeting at all.
15:36:22 [nigel]
.. We can have those whenever we want.
15:36:35 [nigel]
.. If we are going to miss important participants because of the time, maybe we can
15:36:49 [nigel]
.. not have a TTWG meeting but instead have a workshop that benefits from in-person discussions.
15:37:06 [nigel]
.. It would be silly to go to Vancouver to have a meeting we can do over the phone.
15:38:10 [nigel]
Nigel: I broadly agree, but note that there is an intangible value to making some decisions
15:38:23 [nigel]
.. in person around the table, thinking back over previous meetings.
15:38:33 [nigel]
.. Even if they could have been done over the phone.
15:38:50 [nigel]
.. Anything else about TPAC for now?
15:39:00 [nigel]
Topic: Rechartering status update
15:39:07 [nigel]
Nigel: News!
15:39:35 [nigel]
.. Two meetings, one with each formal objector.
15:40:20 [nigel]
.. The discussion with Google resulted in a pull request that would resolve their objection.
15:40:44 [nigel]
-> https://github.com/w3c/charter-timed-text/pull/80 Proposed edit to resolve Google FO
15:40:52 [nigel]
.. Please review.
15:41:24 [nigel]
.. Thanks Pierre and Gary for already approving.
15:41:47 [nigel]
.. This PR changes the "For example" sentence in ยง3.1 Success Criteria
15:42:04 [nigel]
.. which, although it is an example, does include normative keyword MAY.
15:42:18 [nigel]
Cyril: I think I understand the purpose of the change, but want to check.
15:42:38 [nigel]
.. The last change, source -> implementation, I understand, that it says there's an implementation behind.
15:43:11 [nigel]
.. Why was the word "single" removed?
15:43:27 [nigel]
Nigel: I don't think I can express the answer to that, it would be for Chris Wilson to say.
15:43:38 [nigel]
Cyril: Thanks, it looks good to me too. Will approve.
15:44:21 [nigel]
Nigel: Does anyone have any concerns about this pull request?
15:44:42 [nigel]
Pierre: This is your pull request though, Nigel?
15:44:56 [nigel]
Nigel: I did the admin of opening the pull request and typing the words, but the change was driven
15:45:01 [nigel]
.. by Chris primarily, on the call.
15:45:23 [nigel]
Nigel: I'm sensing nobody has any concerns about this change.
15:45:28 [nigel]
.. The next one is from Apple.
15:45:44 [nigel]
-> https://github.com/w3c/charter-timed-text/pull/81 Reintroduce the 'at least two independent implementations' SHOULD from the previous version of the charter.
15:46:21 [nigel]
Nigel: Apple had a different take on it.
15:46:41 [nigel]
.. They really want to push Charters to have a stronger requirement for CR exit than the minimum
15:46:57 [nigel]
.. required by the Process, and I think in time they would like to raise that minimum in the Process too.
15:47:20 [nigel]
.. So they're definitely unhappy about the idea that Content alone, even though it may have come from an
15:47:32 [nigel]
.. implementation, as they see that, might be one of the factors.
15:47:48 [nigel]
.. However, given that they have previously approved the old wording, they said if we have the
15:48:01 [nigel]
.. old wording as well as the new wording, that would be hard for them to object to.
15:49:46 [nigel]
.. They want to get W3C to a place where there are two implementations that do the intent of the spec,
15:49:54 [nigel]
.. e.g. for a caption format, paints pixels on a screen.
15:50:21 [nigel]
Gary: They also understood our wording differently - what does "Content" mean,
15:50:33 [nigel]
.. what does "validating implementation" mean. The old wording is tried and tested.
15:50:58 [nigel]
Cyril: Sorry if I'm rehashing, but the suggestion from Apple doesn't seem different from what we have.
15:51:20 [nigel]
.. The Google change is clear about two independent implementation, not necessarily of the same type.
15:51:32 [nigel]
.. The second thing: I'm not sure we're in disagreement.
15:51:48 [nigel]
.. If I understand correctly it's W3T to verify implementations - they don't have to be open source,
15:52:04 [nigel]
.. or on the market. That to me is equivalent to providing the content, because a tool has been used
15:52:14 [nigel]
.. to provide it. I don't see how the proposal is any different to what we have.
15:53:04 [nigel]
Nigel: You reminded me of another key point of discussion:
15:53:21 [nigel]
.. We haven't distinguished between content made for test by the WG and
15:53:53 [nigel]
.. real world content made by a bunch of other implementations made by non-WG members.
15:55:36 [nigel]
Cyril: Chicken-and-egg - implementers want spec maturity before making content.
15:55:52 [nigel]
.. [asks a q about content]
15:56:30 [nigel]
Nigel: I think a large cohort of real world IMSC content provided by multiple providers,
15:56:43 [nigel]
.. all passing the IMSC HRM, would not be adequate from their perspective.
15:57:12 [nigel]
.. They want the spec to be shown to be implementable with the same results based on the spec text
15:57:21 [nigel]
.. by more than one person independently.
15:57:43 [nigel]
Pierre: I think it's bad to force Process changes via Charters.
15:57:58 [nigel]
.. My interpretation is that they don't value the existence of documents as a means of proving interop.
15:58:12 [nigel]
.. They want multiple processors independently made. That's the bottom line, right?
15:58:14 [nigel]
Nigel: Yes
15:58:36 [nigel]
Pierre: I don't agree with that personally.
15:58:50 [nigel]
Gary: Their issue with content is that to them it doesn't represent someone reading the spec and
15:59:02 [nigel]
.. understanding it, necessarily. They could have thrown a bunch of angle brackets in a file
15:59:06 [nigel]
.. and it just happened to work.
15:59:17 [nigel]
Pierre: I could argue the same about processors!
15:59:30 [nigel]
Gary: That was their issue with the validating implementation bullet.
15:59:46 [nigel]
.. We had a higher model of what a validating implementation needs to be.
16:00:05 [nigel]
Pierre: My guess is if we accept Apple's input we will have that fight again later.
16:00:19 [nigel]
Gary: You're right but we likely have a better story for HRM particularly.
16:00:36 [nigel]
Andreas: Clarification: if you have an implementation built to create samples, that's an implementation?
16:00:53 [nigel]
.. Also, about the normative keywords, there is no MUST in their PR right? It's a SHOULD.
16:01:07 [nigel]
Gary: Yes. They would prefer a MUST but are bringing back the status quo.
16:01:22 [nigel]
Andreas: Possibly that hints at what Pierre said that they may come back to this later.
16:02:10 [nigel]
Nigel: There are some options here:
16:02:14 [nigel]
.. 1. Accept their PR
16:02:36 [nigel]
.. 2. Reject their PR and tighten up the bullets to meet their needs
16:02:52 [nigel]
.. 3. Wait for them to come back with potential alternative changes that would satisfy them.
16:03:04 [nigel]
Gary: They did say they would also circle back to the process discussions.
16:03:33 [nigel]
Nigel: Of those, does anyone think we accept their PR, so we can just move on?
16:03:50 [nigel]
Cyril: I need time to digest that.
16:03:56 [nigel]
.. We've extended to when?
16:03:59 [nigel]
Gary: End of June
16:04:12 [nigel]
.. If we don't come to a conclusion by then we'll have to extend again.
16:04:46 [nigel]
Pierre: Maybe to leave us, what do you and Gary recommend, having been in the discussions?
16:05:48 [nigel]
Nigel: Right now, personally, my recommendation is to think about it. The PR was opened 21 hours ago.
16:05:57 [nigel]
Gary: Right, there's no rush yet. Better to sit on it for a bit.
16:06:09 [nigel]
s/ago./ago. Plus there may be other alternative options.
16:06:16 [nigel]
Pierre: Thank you
16:06:43 [nigel]
Atsushi: Note from me: for Charter Extension, several WGs are getting multiple extensions while
16:07:02 [nigel]
s/Atsushi: Note from me: for Charter Extension, several WGs are getting multiple extensions while//
16:07:37 [nigel]
Topic: Meeting close
16:08:18 [calvaris]
calvaris has left #tt
16:08:19 [nigel]
Nigel: Thanks everyone. Regrets from me for the next call.
16:08:26 [nigel]
.. [adjourns meeting]
16:08:29 [nigel]
rrsagent, make minutes
16:08:29 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2022/05/12-tt-minutes.html nigel
16:10:48 [nigel]
scribeOptions: -final -noEmbedDiagnostics
16:10:59 [nigel]
zakim, end meeting
16:10:59 [Zakim]
As of this point the attendees have been Andreas, Gary, Nigel, Xabier, Pierre, Cyril, Atsushi
16:11:01 [Zakim]
RRSAgent, please draft minutes v2
16:11:01 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2022/05/12-tt-minutes.html Zakim
16:11:04 [Zakim]
I am happy to have been of service, nigel; please remember to excuse RRSAgent. Goodbye
16:11:08 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #tt
16:17:53 [nigel]
rrsagent, excuse us
16:17:53 [RRSAgent]
I see no action items