15:59:50 RRSAgent has joined #tt 15:59:54 logging to https://www.w3.org/2023/01/19-tt-irc 15:59:54 RRSAgent, make logs Public 15:59:55 please title this meeting ("meeting: ..."), nigel 16:01:06 Meeting: Timed Text Working Group Teleconference 16:01:14 Agenda: https://github.com/w3c/ttwg/issues/237 16:01:34 Previous meeting: https://www.w3.org/2022/12/22-tt-minutes.html 16:01:58 Present: Andreas, Atsushi, Cyril, Nigel 16:02:03 Regrets: Pierre 16:02:44 Present+ Gary 16:02:49 Chair: Gary, Nigel 16:03:28 rrsagent, make minutes 16:03:29 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/01/19-tt-minutes.html nigel 16:04:11 Present+ Philippe 16:04:15 Topic: This meeting 16:05:02 Nigel: Today: Charter status, DAPT, Registries. 16:05:05 .. AOB? 16:05:49 No other business 16:05:55 Topic: Charter Status 16:06:18 Nigel: Right now, our Charter is expired according to 16:06:26 -> https://www.w3.org/groups/wg/timed-text/charters TTWG Charters page 16:06:41 Philippe: At the minimum we need an extension basically 16:06:44 Nigel: Yes 16:07:03 Philippe: Action item on Atsushi to request at least a 3 month extension on the Charter so the group can continue to operate 16:07:07 Atsushi: Will do 16:07:12 Philippe: Thank you Atsushi 16:07:18 plh has joined #tt 16:08:38 Cyril: We're very close to FPWD for DAPT. 16:08:47 .. Will we be able to publish under the extension? 16:08:53 Philippe: Yes if it is in the current Charter 16:08:57 Nigel: Yes, it is. 16:09:07 Philippe: Until further notice the current charter stays in effect 16:10:02 Nigel: Question remains open about the status of the new Charter. 16:10:23 .. Philippe pinged Apple and Mozilla and there was a response from Mozilla. 16:10:31 -> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-charters-review/2023Jan/0004.html Member only link to reminder 16:10:36 .. I responded to that. 16:11:16 .. What I want is to get to a determined state on this, somehow, as soon as possible. 16:11:21 Philippe: Yes, I agree. 16:12:07 .. I am still working with Apple to get a response. 16:12:17 .. I also updated Amy yesterday by email. 16:12:45 .. The Team was tasked by the FO Council is to establish if the FO still stands. 16:13:01 .. Unless I can get some response I'm going to have to say back to the FO Council that it still stands. 16:13:31 .. I mentioned this to the AB in the previous hour and got no reaction other than a request to talk from Florian. 16:14:10 .. My expectation is that I will have to go back to the FO Council. 16:14:16 .. That's where we are. 16:15:07 Nigel: My reflection here is that this situation was caused by non-responsiveness from Apple and that 16:15:28 .. situation is simply continuing. There has to be a limit here, I think we've reached it. 16:15:40 Cyril: We still have a Director? 16:15:59 Philippe: Formally speaking, TBL delegated it to Ralph who delegated it to me, but in doing that he 16:16:07 .. told me every FO has to run through the Council. 16:16:29 .. Until the Council has made a decision the Director won't do anything. 16:17:57 .. To me, I did warn you that your Charter would create issues and it did. 16:18:12 .. On the other hand, we are still extending so no technical work is impeded from happening at the moment. 16:18:29 .. That's what matters the most, that you guys can still do what you want to do. 16:18:55 Nigel: Except for the opportunity cost. 16:19:23 Philippe: You're welcome to say you just want a decision from the Council now if you want. 16:19:33 Nigel: That's what I want. I see Gary nodding. 16:19:51 Gary: Yes, I want the FO Council just to decide. 16:20:07 .. We're not immediately blocked but HRM might be blocked from progressing on the Rec track. 16:20:44 Nigel: Since HRM is a refactor of existing Rec text I think it is in scope and we can work on it. 16:21:01 Philippe: I don't think I could block that. 16:21:08 Nigel: It's in WD, we will want to move it to CR. 16:21:16 s/that/ it from being published as FPWD/ 16:21:52 Cyril: I also approve the decision to ask the Council to make a decision 16:21:55 Nigel: Thank you 16:22:08 Nigel: Do we need to do anything else now Philippe? 16:22:30 Philippe: No, I will check with Florian on Process, but assuming I'm in line then I will 16:22:46 .. go back to the Council and tell them the WG wants a decision, rather than bouncing the ball around. 16:23:14 .. You guys are welcome to give your feelings to the Council directly. 16:23:33 Nigel: I don't think we are, unless we're invited to. Obviously we can contact Amy. 16:23:38 Philippe leaves 16:24:02 Topic: DAPT 16:24:35 Subtopic: Clarify Profile Resolution semantics w3c/dapt#103 16:24:36 https://github.com/w3c/dapt/pull/103 : Clarify Profile Resolution semantics 16:24:44 github: https://github.com/w3c/dapt/pull/103 16:24:55 Nigel: I wanted to check in with you about where we're up to with this. 16:25:48 .. To formalise the requirements, the change is: 16:26:12 .. * Define some Extension features correspond to the normative MUST type language in the main body of the spec 16:26:26 .. * List dispositions of features and extensions, IMSC-style 16:26:47 .. * And then, also, for clarity, include a TTML2 Content Profile document and a TTML2 Processor Profile document. 16:26:53 .. Those are all in the appendix. 16:28:50 .. Partly this is driven by a gap in TTML2 processor profile inference semantics that looks hard to fix. 16:29:00 .. For implementers this means that there will effectively be a checklist of features and extensions 16:29:15 .. to implement, in the appendix, or they can just do what the normative statements in the body of the spec say. 16:29:53 .. Cyril and I have discussed this, I wanted to raise with the group in case anyone has any opinions or questions. 16:30:18 .. If this seems interesting, please take a look. 16:30:30 .. My next steps are that I am going through the normative statements in the body text 16:30:39 .. and making sure that we have extension features for all of them so 16:30:46 .. that the checklist approach will in fact work, 16:30:57 .. and I expect we may need to create tests scoped to each feature too, 16:31:00 .. for CR exit. 16:31:18 .. My hope is that by doing this work up-front that gets easier rather than harder. 16:31:43 SUMMARY: Group informed of approach 16:31:55 Topic: Defining a Registry #241 16:32:31 Nigel: I started a GitHub discussion at https://github.com/w3c/ttwg/discussions/241 16:32:40 -> https://github.com/w3c/ttwg/discussions/241 GitHub Discussion on Registry 16:34:49 .. [goes through discussion points] 16:35:02 .. Motivation for this is we said we wanted to move some TTML2 data into a Registry, 16:35:09 .. and we may need to do something similar for DAPT 16:36:12 .. My hope is that we can establish a single TTWG approach to the policy, custodian, rules etc 16:36:26 .. that we can reuse for any Registries without having to discuss this all again! 16:39:47 .. Some key assumptions are listed 16:40:10 Gary: The Registry will be in a version control system? 16:40:13 Nigel: Yes 16:40:56 Atsushi: In fact the Registry Track document is on /TR and that is the final version control system 16:40:58 Nigel: Yes, good point 16:41:10 Atsushi: In any case some practical process needs to be in the document 16:41:13 Nigel: Yes 16:41:59 .. Next steps: 16:42:18 .. Please look at the strawman proposal and note any comments or questions you have on the GitHub discussion page 16:42:37 .. Gary I saw you were agreeing with the assumptions about what is unfriendly to the world, so a positive 16:42:44 .. comment about that would be really helpful. 16:43:08 .. I'd like to spend maybe 2 meetings/4 weeks looking at this and then if we have consensus 16:43:23 .. the next stage is to write the proposal up more formally as boilerplate text that can be reused. 16:43:38 .. Make sense? 16:43:39 Andreas: Yes! 16:43:40 +1 16:45:20 Atsushi: In case public-tt email reflector stops operating, there should be a catch-all implemented into the Process 16:45:36 Nigel: the W3C Process, or this TTWG one? 16:46:04 Atsushi: If the WG is closed and archived, and the mailing list is frozen, then some transition to 16:46:29 .. custodianship will happen. I am wondering how that relates to any custodianship rules in the Registry definition. 16:46:37 .. Which should we define and which should be considered in the Process. 16:46:44 .. I'm not sure what will happen after that. 16:47:43 Nigel: It's a good point, we can't know, by definition, what will happen post-TTWG, assuming everything 16:47:46 .. ends at some point! 16:48:06 .. Maybe we should explicitly grant permission in our boilerplate for the Team to delegate it to some other group. 16:48:23 Gary: It does seem like the Process should say something about Registries, if the WG is no longer around 16:48:35 .. then the Team can assign it to another WG or have some other way to receive and approve requests for 16:48:37 .. changes. 16:49:01 Nigel: I will raise this with the Process CG 16:49:28 .. It's hypothetical, but one day folk will thank us for thinking ahead! 16:49:36 Gary: For any W3C spec right? 16:50:01 Atsushi: Yes. I spent many years in Japanese academic culture, and I've encountered these kinds of 16:50:07 .. process concerns many times. 16:50:26 .. What happens when the professor is gone?! I'm always curious about these kind of things. 16:51:30 q+ add new repository? 16:51:39 ack atsushi 16:51:50 Atsushi: Do you want to have a new repository for the Registry? 16:52:04 Nigel: I don't think we should have a new repo now. 16:52:14 .. The boilerplate can live in the TTWG repo, 16:52:24 .. and then it should be copied to wherever it is used later. 16:52:43 Gary: Do we want a separate repo for each registry, or have it live in the repo of the referencing spec? 16:52:57 Atsushi: I believe we can start a Registry document using Respec or Bikeshed 16:53:09 .. and we can set up a custom GitHub action to specify the document, so it should be fine 16:53:20 .. within TTML2 repo, but if we want to have a separate repo I need to set it up. 16:53:49 Nigel: I couldn't find a way to do a Registry Track doc in Respec. Are there any examples? 16:54:03 Atsushi: I believe Respec now has Registry configurations. 16:54:54 -> https://github.com/w3c/ttwg/discussions/241#discussioncomment-4729770 How can we configure Respec for Registry track documents? 16:55:39 .. I think it will be easier to configure a separate Repository per Registry Track doc 16:55:57 .. Especially having it in the same repository as an xmlspec based spec is a nightmare for me. 16:57:48 Atsushi: Let me propose a separate repo for Registry track docs, please! 16:57:53 Nigel: You're very welcome. 16:58:05 Nigel: Any more on this topic? 16:58:11 Topic: Meeting close 16:58:30 Nigel: Thanks all. Happy New Year once again (we said it at the beginning but I didn't scribe it) 16:58:54 .. [adjourns meeting] 16:59:00 rrsagent, make minutes 16:59:01 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/01/19-tt-minutes.html nigel 17:08:30 scribeOptions: -final -noEmbedDiagnostics 17:08:35 zakim, end meeting 17:08:37 As of this point the attendees have been Andreas, Atsushi, Cyril, Nigel, Gary, Philippe 17:08:37 RRSAgent, please draft minutes 17:08:39 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/01/19-tt-minutes.html Zakim 17:08:46 I am happy to have been of service, nigel; please remember to excuse RRSAgent. Goodbye 17:08:46 Zakim has left #tt 17:19:04 rrsagent, excuse us 17:19:04 I see no action items