Meeting minutes
This meeting
Nigel: Agenda topics for today:
… Charter status
… Registry
… (IMSC-HRM we'll drop in the absence of Pierre)
… TPAC 2023 planning
… Plus in AOB, DST affecting the UTC start of future meetings.
… Any other business?
Atsushi: I can issue a Zoom URL for TTWG using the W3C Zoom account
Nigel: Who can administer that, just staff, or Chairs too?
Atsushi: I haven't investigated it yet
Gary: At least the Chairs should be able to manage/host the meeting
Atsushi: I think that kind of configuration should be possible.
Nigel: Ok, thank you, let's do that offline.
Charter status
Nigel: The most important item of business is the CfC for changing the charter draft.
Results of Call for Consensus for w3c/charter-timed-text#86
<Github> w3c/
Github: w3c/
Nigel: I told the TTWG by email that I wanted to expedite this change,
… and asked for positive approvals to allow us to do that.
… Thank you to everyone who added their approval.
… There were approvals from all the regular participants, and no "request changes"
… and no comments.
… So I think we're good to declare Consensus on this. Gary, happy?
Gary: Yes
Nigel: Chairs declare CfC in this pull request to be concluded with consensus to make the change.
SUMMARY: Chairs declare CfC in this pull request to be concluded with consensus to make the change.
Nigel: Also worth noting Apple approved it too.
… That's merged now.
github-bot, end topic
Nigel: The next action is for me to inform Florian so that the W3C Council can conclude.
… Thank you everyone.
… Anything else for this agenda topic?
Nothing more
Defining a Registry #241 and #243
Nigel: Not sure if anyone other than me and Atsushi have had a chance to review this yet.
… Please do!
… The wider questions are:
… * should we adopt this in the TTML Profile Registry?
… * Should we be publishing a document we can reference from Registries.
… or aiming to include by duplication.
… I don't have strong opinions right now.
Cyril: It would help if we had a preview of what changed
Nigel: The limitation is with PR Preview, since this ttwg repo has more than one document in it
… I think Atsushi created a copy of it
… Otherwise you have to clone it and open it locally.
Atsushi: I'll recreate that...
<atsushi> https://
Nigel: Thank you, best to review that offline and add comments on the pull request.
Cyril: Is the final name going to be Registry Boilerplate?
… This is more like a process than something to copy and paste
Nigel: That's what is needed, the registry definition has to include a process
Cyril: Imagine we want to create a registry for DAPT, what would we do, clone the page?
Nigel: Yes
Cyril: And then change section 2?
… I see that §3 is the registry itself.
Gary: Theoretically we could publish the process as a separate document and then reference it.
… We would still want something to be able to copy, like section 3.
Nigel: I added a checklist for applying to a real registry.
Atsushi: If we can organise everything for the whole registry into one section then it would be
… easier to copy and paste.
… Or, there is a feature of Respec to include a section from another file, like index.html
… inserting section-2.html by Respec.
Nigel: That's a really good idea, I didn't think of that.
Gary: Referencing it sounds like it might be better because if we want to update the definition
<atsushi> https://
Gary: and there's more than one registry then we'd have to update all the registries.
… If we can update in one place and have it propagate everywhere that would be good.
Atsushi: I can't see an easy hack for this, there could be one later.
Nigel: I think your suggestion is already a good hack.
Atsushi: I meant publishing the boilerplate as a statement and then normatively referencing.
… It seems that is not desired or allowed.
Nigel: Why?
Atsushi: Registry is similar to Rec track operation. Statement has a final review by committee,
… but not getting the same level of status as Rec track.
… It's an endorsement but not a Rec track style commitment.
Nigel: Statements are W3C level, not WG level?
Atsushi: Yes, raised from Note.
Nigel: Why shouldn't a Registry Definition reference another Registry Definition?
Atsushi: That is an interesting question I will have to ask about the publication approval process.
Cyril: I had a look at the proposal. My main comment is why do we think the boilerplate should
… contain all the text that we don't expect to change. All the process part about custodian,
… the definitions of provisional, final and deprecated. Can we have a TTWG document that defines these
… and have the registry definition be shorter and just define the bits that are needed.
Nigel: That's the core of the question: this document could be that, potentially.
… It's quite long when you write it all down.
Cyril: Yes, we should just introduce the registry, point to the normative parts, and define only the local things.
Atsushi: The question is where we can put the common parts.
Nigel: I'd be happy to go back to the Process CG and ask about Reg Definitions referencing other docs.
Cyril: We shouldn't call it boilerplate, we should call it Registry Process,
… and then have the process bit referenceable, and a boilerplate part for copying and pasting.
Nigel: OK, then the copy-paste part would be in the appendix.
… Seems to me that the way forward is:
… 1. I'll check what kind of document a Registry Definition can normatively reference
… 2. Create a separate repo for this document and restructure as Cyril suggested above.
group: [nods]
Nigel: Anything else on this topic?
TPAC 2023 planning
Nigel: Placeholder - we need to start thinking about this.
Gary: The survey is due mid-May.
Nigel: What do we need?
Gary: Same as last year...
… Approx number of in-person, joint meetings, non-overlaps, days we want to meet, flexibility
… Dates are Sep 11 through 15.
Nigel: IBC in Amsterdam overlaps with the end of the TPAC week
… so I suggest we ask to schedule media related meetings in the first half of the week.
Gary: Seville to Amsterdam isn't too far
Nigel: Same time zone!
Gary: We need the survey by May 8th specifically
Cyril: I would be as simple as taking the participants who normally come, and making it the maximum
Gary: I doubt it would be that different from last year.
Nigel: Depends a lot on attitudes towards international travel, and if they revert to years gone by,
… when we had lots of observers in the room, particularly from East Asia.
… Big question is agenda topics, unclear to me.
… Not sure if we want to tackle big questions like subtitles and captions in the web ecosystem,
… or user customisation of subtitle and caption presentation.
Gary: Might be interesting to see if we can push Apple's HTML text track cue preview forward.
Nigel: Agreed
<gkatsev> TexTTrackCue explainer from Apple
Nigel: Of course there might be some DAPT stuff to work on too.
Nigel: The topic is open, we don't have to conclude now.
… I agree with Cyril's general approach
… Anything else on this topic?
AOB: DST Change upcoming
Nigel: Our next call on 30th March, and the subsequent ones until some time in October,
… will be scheduled 1 hour earlier in UTC to accommodate DST.
… That's already factored into the TTWG calendar entries.
Meeting close
Nigel: Thanks everyone, we've completed our agenda.
… [adjourns meeting]