15:57:23 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #tt
15:57:23 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2022/11/24-tt-irc
15:57:25 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
15:57:26 <Zakim> Meeting: Timed Text Working Group Teleconference
15:57:38 <nigel> Agenda: https://github.com/w3c/ttwg/issues/233
15:57:46 <nigel> Previous meeting: https://www.w3.org/2022/11/10-tt-minutes.html
15:57:51 <nigel> Present: Nigel
15:57:58 <nigel> Chair: Gary, Nigel
15:58:02 <nigel> scribe: nigel
15:58:42 <cpn> cpn has joined #tt
16:01:06 <nigel> Present+ Pierre, Chris_Needham, Amy
16:01:25 <rhiaro> present+
16:02:34 <nigel> Present+ Gary
16:03:38 <nigel> Present+ Andreas
16:03:42 <nigel> Topic: This meeting
16:04:07 <nigel> Regrets: none
16:04:25 <pal> pal has joined #tt
16:04:38 <atai1> atai1 has joined #tt
16:04:55 <nigel> Nigel: For the agenda today we have:
16:05:12 <nigel> .. Rechartering Formal Objection Council status update
16:05:18 <nigel> Present+ Cyril
16:05:39 <nigel> .. DAPT, IMSC-HRM
16:05:47 <nigel> .. Any other business to raise?
16:07:11 <nigel> group: [no other business]
16:07:14 <nigel> Topic: Rechartering Formal Objection Council status update
16:08:12 <nigel> Present+ Xabier
16:09:00 <nigel> Nigel: We have received the FO Council members, and an email from the chair
16:09:21 <nigel> Amy: The Council met on Monday 21st this week.
16:09:27 <nigel> .. Apologies again for how long this took.
16:09:35 <nigel> .. The outcome in short is that the Council has done what should
16:09:48 <nigel> .. arguably have been done to prevent the Council in the first place,
16:09:56 <nigel> .. where they've drafted some alternate text.
16:10:14 <nigel> .. This is different from previous Councils that have upheld (or not) the Objections.
16:10:23 <nigel> .. In the past the Director always sought consensus between the parties.
16:10:32 <nigel> .. In that spirit we have this outcome, that might seem unexpected.
16:10:45 <nigel> .. If you have any more questions about the process, I can do my best to answer them.
16:10:57 <nigel> .. I chaired it but I'm not an expert in the process itself.
16:11:10 <nigel> .. I sent a draft of a few edits to the Success Criteria §3.1 of the Charter,
16:11:15 <nigel> .. which was discussed at length.
16:11:25 <nigel> .. The draft was written by me and Florian after the meeting and circulated
16:11:34 <nigel> .. to check it represents consensus in the meeting, which is did.
16:11:49 <nigel> .. I want to check if it matches the intention of the TTWG.
16:12:02 <nigel> .. There was some ambiguity about testing individual features vs whole specifications.
16:12:13 <nigel> .. I'm not sure if you've had time to read the proposal yet.
16:12:39 <nigel> .. I feel there is not a substantive conflict of intent, it feels like a matter of interpretation.
16:12:43 <nigel> .. Happy to answer questions.
16:13:06 <cpn> scribe+ cpn
16:13:15 <nigel> q?
16:14:05 <cpn> Nigel: Thank you. The theme you put forward is whether the language is clear to explain our thinking, that's good feedback
16:14:28 <cpn> ... At the same time, having been involved in the discussions, it felt like we said what we meant, and the proposal does change things to some extent
16:14:35 <pal> q+
16:14:46 <cpn> ... I'm not sure we're in a position to go into the detail, need time to review the proposal
16:15:19 <cpn> ... I see three insertions in the edit: to clarify that the two independent factors of verificaiton are for each normative requirement
16:15:27 <cpn> ... want to understand what that does
16:15:42 <cpn> ... And the two factors are the ones relevant for the requirement
16:16:06 <cpn> ... And on content, added "producing implementation", meaning some form of authoring tool
16:16:50 <cpn> ... [reads the proposed text]
16:17:36 <cpn> ... My question is it's the features that need to be verified not the requirements
16:18:17 <cpn> Amy: My reading is that requirements are synomymous with features. It's intended to mean the normative requirements that the spec imposes on implementations
16:18:51 <nigel> ack pal
16:18:56 <cpn> ... It was in the interest of removing any ambiguity. We also read in the context of a PR, not the full document
16:19:13 <cpn> Pierre: Going back to the team report provided to the council, did the council review it?
16:19:26 <cpn> Amy: We were all asked to review it, I did several times
16:19:53 <cpn> Pierre: There's a paragraph on how the WG plans on using the flexibility in the charter and exit criteria. Does the proposed text allow us to do this?
16:20:11 <cpn> ... The team report had a specific example of how the exit criteria could be met
16:20:31 <cpn> Amy: Our intent is that it would meet the needs of the WG
16:20:56 <cpn> Pierre: Does the FO council feel the plan we laid out would satisfy the wording proposed by the council?
16:21:29 <cpn> Amy: It's outside my domain, so hard to get up to speed on what it's for. My question to the WG is does it meet the needs, and can explore further if not
16:21:57 <nigel> q+ to mention why the success criteria are defined in terms of feature
16:22:00 <cpn> Pierre: The WG plan in this particular case, is to demonstrate implementation experience through the open source validator
16:22:06 <rhiaro> q+
16:22:39 <cpn> ... Combine an OSS validator implementation with test content produced by independent parties with their own authoring tools
16:23:10 <cpn> ... The plan was to use the independence of the validator and the content authors, to show implementation experience
16:23:28 <cpn> ... Does that satisfy the FO council criteria?
16:23:38 <nigel> ack rhi
16:24:04 <cpn> Amy: This where really understanding the spec in question would be helpful. Is the spec for a consuming implementation?
16:24:30 <cpn> ... I have experience with data models, where you validate with a test suite
16:24:45 <cpn> ... I haven't seen a situation where one set of content with a validator counts
16:25:00 <cpn> ... The content could be written to the validator implementation not the spec
16:25:08 <cpn> ... But I don't know if that applies in this case
16:25:22 <cpn> ... Does it specify content or validator requirements, or both?
16:25:44 <cpn> Pierre: The validator assumes as input a syntactically valid document
16:26:25 <cpn> ... The validator applies a set of criteria intended to mimic how an implementation scales, to see if the document would be too complex for an implementation to render
16:26:50 <cpn> ... The output indicates if the document is too complex, yes or no
16:27:23 <cpn> ... Allows the document complexity to be constrained, and also affects designers of presentation engines, as they want to present correctly everything that passes the validator
16:28:11 <cpn> ... The intent of the complexity model that results in the validator is to maximise the chances that documents produced by one party can be consumed by a presentation engine produced by another party
16:28:35 <cpn> ... A couple of things we're trying to demonstrate: correctness of the spec, and confirm that the constraints in the spec meet community needs
16:29:00 <cpn> ... So we have multiple goals for implementation experience
16:29:24 <cpn> ... Something different to other specs, it's unlikely for a community standpoint that there's a need for multiple validators in practice
16:30:08 <cpn> ... Community resources are limited, so the sense is it's better to spend effort testing the validator with real content, rather than create a second or more validator implementations
16:30:17 <cpn> Nigel: But we also have synthetic tests
16:30:58 <cpn> Pierre: Yes. If other validators were presented, we'd accept them. But to focus resources on demonstrating interoperability, use the single OSS implementation and use actual content from different entities
16:31:17 <cpn> Amy: Thanks for the explanation, I'm trying to understand this
16:31:28 <cpn> ... Does the spec put requirements on content or the validator, or a mix?
16:31:43 <cpn> Pierre: It's a mix of both
16:32:34 <cpn> Amy: On passing content from multiple providers, that seems fine and meets the requirement
16:33:01 <cpn> ... I wonder if there's a way of framing it in the spec that the requirements placed on the validator can be placed on content. Would that make sense?
16:33:26 <cpn> Pierre: Whether content or authoring or validation profile, it's all related
16:33:48 <cpn> ... Passing one requirement implies passing the other
16:34:24 <cpn> ... [example of requirement for painting a region]
16:34:44 <cpn> ... They're inseparable, one can be recast into the other
16:35:24 <cpn> Amy: Framing it as normative on content, and passing multiple content through, seems strong
16:35:55 <cpn> Pierre: I want to check if you feel that text recommended by the council would allow the exit criteria
16:36:06 <cpn> Amy: I can't speak for the whole council, but it seems ok to me
16:36:15 <cpn> Pierre: Would it help to describe in more detail?
16:36:37 <cpn> Amy: It would be helpful for the WG to discuss the proposed text, see if it meets your needs.
16:36:48 <cpn> ... Can go into more detail if there are questions
16:37:23 <cpn> Pierre: If it's felt it meets charter requirements, we want to avoid having a subsequent objection when we get to PR
16:38:50 <nigel> q?
16:39:13 <cpn> Nigel: Thank you both. I want to return to there being some ambiguity about why we're talking about features rather than whole specifications
16:39:47 <rhiaro> q+
16:39:48 <cpn> ... The current Process allows specifications have feature additions once reached Rec status
16:40:42 <nigel> ack n
16:40:42 <Zakim> nigel, you wanted to mention why the success criteria are defined in terms of feature
16:40:45 <cpn> ... I also wanted to check, what's the intent of "as relevant for that requirement"? How would someone assess which kinds of implementation are relevant for a particular requirement? Does the council have a test in mind?
16:40:46 <nigel> ack rhi
16:41:00 <cpn> Amy: On defining in terms of features, that's the right way to do it
16:41:47 <cpn> ... If there are requirements on content, we'd want to see two pieces of content from different implementers
16:42:13 <cpn> ... If there's a requirement on validators, members of the AC would expect to see two validators to meet the requirement
16:42:28 <cpn> ... That's why it could make sense to reframe as requirements on content
16:44:29 <nigel> q?
16:44:55 <cpn> Nigel: The action is on us to think carefully and come back with an answer
16:45:03 <cpn> ... May not be able to do that until our next call
16:45:19 <cpn> Amy: That's fine. I'll do my best to turn this round as quickly as possible
16:46:05 <cpn> ... If the alternative is the council upholds the objection and returns it to the WG, you'd have to go through the AC again. So hoping to have a faster way to resolve it than that
16:46:34 <pal> q+
16:46:58 <cpn> Pierre: How does the council know this would satisfy the objector?
16:47:17 <cpn> Amy: There are two Apple representatives on the council, and they've said as much
16:47:18 <nigel> ack pal
16:47:59 <cpn> Pierre: Thank you for trying to get consensus. We've had repeated attempts, trying to get a discussion on a compromise
16:48:25 <cpn> Amy: That was on the council agenda
16:48:28 <nigel> q?
16:49:20 <cpn> Topic: DAPT
16:50:18 <cpn> Nigel: Cyril and I did a review, we plan to have regular editors calls between group meetings
16:50:35 <cpn> ... We have work to do, but no issues needing WG input
16:50:52 <cpn> Cyril: We're working on the spec to address editorial comments, then come back to the group for input
16:51:54 <cpn> ... Andreas, suggest waiting a bit, then do a review of the whole thing, once it's become stable
16:52:05 <cpn> Andreas: Just let me know when it's ready, thank you
16:52:05 <nigel> q?
16:52:15 <cpn> Topic: IMSC HRM
16:52:33 <cpn> Nigel: I initiated TAG review
16:52:40 <nigel> -> https://github.com/w3ctag/design-reviews/issues/788 TAG review issue
16:53:14 <cpn> Nigel: To do that, I created a privacy and security self review
16:53:21 <nigel> -> https://github.com/w3c/imsc-hrm/pull/57 Pull Request to add Privacy and Security self-questionnaire
16:53:45 <cpn> ... The answers I think are uncontroversial
16:54:03 <cpn> ... Pierre and Gary, please review
16:54:29 <cpn> ... Once reviewed I can update the TAG review issue to point to the markdown document rather than the PR
16:54:51 <cpn> Pierre: I'll do that
16:55:21 <cpn> ... Thought we'd done this already?
16:56:04 <cpn> Nigel: Atsushi commented that there weren't security implications, but that's not the same as filling in the self review
16:56:21 <cpn> Pierre: PING reviewed it already, and closed it earlier this year
16:56:46 <cpn> ... It's linked from issue 19
16:57:26 <cpn> Pierre: There was also a security review filed last December, but not closed
16:58:05 <cpn> Nigel: The TAG wants to see the self review questionnaire. Can link to the issues so they know it's happened
16:58:37 <cpn> ... I can check what happened with the security review
17:00:02 <cpn> Nigel: We're out of time, we had other issues to discuss
17:00:06 <cpn> Pierre: Let's follow up offline
17:00:17 <cpn> Nigel: Thanks everyone
17:01:31 <cpn> [adjourned]
17:01:43 <nigel> i/Nigel: Thanks/Topic: Meeting Close
17:01:55 <nigel> rrsagent, make minutes
17:01:55 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2022/11/24-tt-minutes.html nigel
17:05:54 <nigel> Present- Amy, rhiario
17:06:06 <nigel> Present+ Amy_(rhiaro)
17:06:11 <nigel> Present- rhiaro
17:12:23 <nigel> s/in the meeting, which is did/in the meeting, which it did
17:12:56 <nigel> s/verificaiton/verification/g
17:13:59 <nigel> s/My question is it's the features that need to be verified not the requirements/My question is what is the difference between "normative feature" and "normative requirement"?
17:14:08 <atai1> atai1 has left #tt
17:14:18 <nigel> s/synomymous/synonymous/g
17:14:46 <nigel> s/We also read in the context of a PR, not the full document//
17:15:24 <nigel> s/My question to the WG is does it meet the needs, and can explore further if not/My question to the WG is does it meet the needs, and can explore further if not - we need to answer this question together.
17:17:12 <nigel> s/But we also have synthetic tests/(sorry to interrupt) but we also have synthetic tests - the idea is not to test solely on real world content.
17:20:51 <nigel> i/Nigel: The action is on us to think/Nigel: It makes sense that we state the CR Exit Criteria in the CR, as we usually do, so we would assess relevancy.
17:22:05 <nigel> s/but no issues needing WG input/but no issues needing WG input. We closed some of Andreas's issues, considering them done.
17:22:26 <nigel> i/Cyril: We're working/.. Please reopen them if you don't agree.
17:22:51 <nigel> rrsagent, make minutes
17:22:51 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2022/11/24-tt-minutes.html nigel
17:28:11 <nigel> scribeOptions: -final -noEmbedDiagnostics
17:28:15 <nigel> zakim, end meeting
17:28:15 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been Nigel, Pierre, Chris_Needham, Amy, rhiaro, Gary, Andreas, Cyril, Xabier, Amy_(rhiaro)
17:28:17 <Zakim> RRSAgent, please draft minutes v2
17:28:17 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2022/11/24-tt-minutes.html Zakim
17:28:20 <Zakim> I am happy to have been of service, nigel; please remember to excuse RRSAgent.  Goodbye
17:28:24 <Zakim> Zakim has left #tt
17:28:52 <nigel> rrsagent, excuse us
17:28:52 <RRSAgent> I see no action items