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