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