15:00:42 RRSAgent has joined #tt 15:00:46 logging to https://www.w3.org/2023/08/03-tt-irc 15:00:47 RRSAgent, make logs Public 15:00:48 Meeting: Timed Text Working Group Teleconference 15:00:51 Agenda: https://github.com/w3c/ttwg/issues/257 15:01:03 Previous meeting: https://www.w3.org/2023/07/20-tt-minutes.html 15:01:06 scribe: nigel 15:01:22 Present: Andreas, Gary, Pierre, Nigel, Chris 15:01:36 Chair: Gary, Nigel 15:01:39 cpn has joined #tt 15:02:05 nigel has changed the topic to: TTWG Teleconference 2023-08-03 1500 UTC. Agenda: https://github.com/w3c/ttwg/issues/257 joining details: https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/fb1d4436-271d-4b22-812c-986f9672d8f0/20230803T150000 15:02:34 Chair: Nigel 15:03:16 Topic: This meeting 15:03:34 Nigel: Agenda for today: 15:03:35 scribe+ cpn 15:03:41 * IMSC-HRM 15:03:50 s/*/..* 15:04:01 .. DAPT 15:05:15 Present+ Atsushi 15:05:15 Nigel: TPAC 2023 planning 15:05:15 Present+ Matt 15:05:20 Nigel: Any other business, or points to make sure we cover? 15:05:24 MattS has joined #tt 15:05:31 group: none 15:05:44 Topic: IMSC-HRM 15:05:58 Nigel: I think the main point here is the call for implementations 15:06:16 .. Pierre, you drafted some text didn't you? 15:06:17 Pierre: Yes 15:06:31 .. I've been contacting people privately. 15:06:41 Nigel: I think that's fine, we don't need to do more than that. 15:07:10 .. I have seen one response from Andreas offering to process some content. 15:07:17 .. Anything more to be said for now? 15:07:37 Pierre: No, it's summer so hard to get attention, but I'm optimistic we will get at least 15:07:43 .. 2 content implementations in the fall 15:08:19 Nigel: Thanks, action remains with all to prompt any contacts to get in touch if they can 15:08:28 .. process content from implementations through the HRM validator. 15:08:51 Pierre: We should try to set some kind of timescale to be done before, say, the New Year. 15:09:06 .. If you know anyone with a collection of IMSC, EBU-TT-D, SMPTE-TT files, please alert them 15:09:18 .. and ask them if they could run a proportion of their content through the HRM, that'd be great, thanks. 15:09:31 Topic: DAPT 15:09:58 Nigel: Updates from me: 15:11:23 Nigel: For wide review and horizontal reviews, we've sent all the horizonal review emails out. We want to get feedback from companies who do translation, but don't have a good list 15:11:50 ... If anyone wants to get in touch with their favourite provider to ask feedback, that would be awesome 15:12:03 ... From a formal perspective, we've done what was needed for charter 15:12:13 ... That's the non-horizontal review stuff 15:12:35 q+ MattS 15:12:42 Andreas: If we know someone we could contact, should we do it through you or via liaison or just point them to the draft and ask feedback? 15:13:16 Nigel: I don't mind, but I'll be away for August, so don't want to be a blocker 15:13:28 ... If any of those orgs will be at IBC, I'd be happy to meet them there 15:13:32 Andreas: OK 15:13:37 ack MattS 15:13:56 Matt: Have you contacted MESA? I was looking for a contact there 15:14:04 Nigel: I don't think I have, but would love to 15:14:13 Matt: Let me see if I can find someone 15:14:16 Nigel: Thank you 15:14:45 Nigel: On horizontal reviews, we've started Accessibility, Privacy, and Security reviews 15:14:53 ... That leaves TAG and i18n 15:15:05 ... Cyril took the action to do those 15:15:17 ... and to write an explainer in the DAPT wiki 15:15:26 -> DAPT Explainer https://github.com/w3c/dapt/wiki/DAPT-Explained 15:15:57 Nigel: Comments and feedback would be welcome. The explainer is a prerequisite for TAG review, and i18n also appreciate it 15:16:24 ... We've made some spec changes to improve i18n. Their checklist generated an issue to do with how we represent bidirectional text in attributes 15:16:43 ... Also in the TTML metadata elements, which only permit PCDATA and not markup to signal bidirectional text 15:17:03 ... We made some editorial changes to the DAPT spec to help explain how that situation can be dealt with 15:17:13 ... There's a remaining issue, #177, about adding an example 15:17:32 ... Cyril is on the hook to request the TAG and i18n reviews 15:18:00 ... The other thing we haven't done yet: we merged the draft boilerplate text for registries, but haven't created the registries that DAPT needs 15:18:06 ... Not sure we can go to CR without it 15:18:35 ... I haven't had time to come up with a plan, add to DAPT itself or put into a separate document 15:18:38 q+ 15:18:51 ack cpn 15:19:01 Chris: Question: what is expected to go in the Registries, and what would be the lifecycle for updating 15:19:07 .. them compared to DAPT itself. 15:19:20 .. If you put the Registry in the spec then you have to produce a new version of the spec, either a 15:19:37 .. CRS or an updated Rec, for adding a new registry entry. If you do it separately then the updates 15:19:41 .. can be managed in a different way. 15:20:26 Nigel: As I understand it from the current Process, sections of specs that are registries can be updated without going through a process to update the CR or Rec 15:20:33 ... So can be done either way and it should be OK 15:20:50 ... I'd expect the registry entries to be changed more often than DAPT would be changed 15:21:25 ... The nice thing about putting the registry as a table in the spec, is there's just one document to look at rather than dereference the spec to another document 15:21:35 ... That suggests what I want the answer to be 15:21:52 ... It would be good to confirm what th e Process requires for changing a registry entry in a spec 15:21:58 s/th e/the/ 15:22:21 Subtopic: Issues and PRs for discussion 15:22:38 -> https://github.com/w3c/dapt/labels/agenda DAPT Issues and Pull Requests labelled as Agenda 15:23:37 Nigel: We had a PR that didn't build correctly, we rely on a GitHub Action, v2 checkout, but it logs a warning about a deprecated version of Node 15:23:51 ... Atsushi, will you check that's OK before we merge the PR? 15:24:10 Atsushi: I should check with the spec-prod action 15:24:18 Nigel: That's fine, it's not urgent 15:24:28 atai has joined #tt 15:25:28 Subtopic: Use of the value "Original" for Text Language Source when it refers to non-dialogue sound w3c/dapt#173 15:25:38 github: https://github.com/w3c/dapt/issues/173 15:26:19 Nigel: Andreas made the point that there's a problem with transcribing and translating things not spoken and not written. For example, a scene where there's something visual that you want to decscribe 15:26:55 ... or a sound, not someone speaking, such as a door slam, how do you label the transcript of that in terms of its language source? 15:27:25 ... I attempted to change the text in PR #179. Thanks Andreas for your helpful review 15:28:06 ... There's this category of stuff, not non-verbal. Some languages don't have a written down form, e.g., sign languages 15:28:20 ... They would count in this, if you transcribe someone signing 15:28:42 ... But I don't know a generic term for that kind of thing, something without an inherent written language 15:28:53 q+ 15:29:04 Pierre: Sign language has a language tag 15:29:29 Nigel: But if you're going to transcribe it into timed text, you'd do it in a language of your choice 15:29:35 Pierre: So what's the issue then? 15:29:49 Nigel: It's partly terminology, how we talk about this kind of transcript text in the DAPT spec 15:29:54 q+ 15:30:04 q+ 15:30:19 Pierre: There's dialog, music and effects, background sounds that could be transcribed, visual elements such as road signs 15:30:37 ... A scene where somebody is signing might be good to transcribe 15:30:51 ... Are you trying to label what they are or their source? 15:31:14 Nigel: Trying to come up with terminology to talk about things we're going to transcribe 15:31:40 ... If a programme is in Dutch, most of the stuff you're transcribing is in Dutch. If you're also transcribing a sound, you'd do that in Dutch as well 15:32:05 ... If audio describinng, would be in Dutch. If translating for another language, you'd translate all the transcript to the other language 15:32:18 ... We have a text language source, can be original or translation at the moment 15:32:28 ... Andreas has an interesting proposal 15:32:28 ack atai 15:34:48 ack MattS 15:35:13 Matt: If you've written sign language down you've translated. If you written BSL down in English, you've translated to English 15:35:38 ... There isn't an alphabet based written form, there are drawn descriptions of the signs 15:35:42 +1 15:35:55 ack gkatsev 15:35:59 ... For fear of upsetting people, we should be careful about terminology 15:36:29 Gary: One of Pierre's points was about signs and things not auditory descriptions. Would it be worth having a way to differentiate that as well? 15:37:09 ... Could non-dialog be better than non-verbal? It gets complicated, if sign language is a translation, it's technically also dialog 15:37:19 Andreas: Andreas: After looking at your proposal, which makes the problem clear, there possibly is no need to catch the text language source 15:38:00 ... If there is no inherint language for content e.g. for non verbal sound we may not need the property Text Language Source because it does not not apply. 15:38:11 s/Andreas: Andreas/Andreas:/ 15:38:36 Nigel: I think it's mandatory, so I think we'd need to make it non-mandatory or add something ?? 15:39:10 Gary: If the original description is in Dutch and you're translating, unless you're writing a new description in the target language, the language would be Dutch 15:39:18 Nigel: That's what I thought 15:39:31 ... I think there's another iteration to do to capture the options more precisely 15:39:43 ... We need to track when something has been translated and when it hasn't 15:40:28 ... I've just added the signing as another part of the problem, but could handle it differently. They're interpreting it into the original language for the transcript, but they could have chosen a different language 15:41:09 ... Perhaps there's a distinction to make between someone speaking in an original language vs an interpretation in the first language the transcript was written in 15:41:42 q? 15:42:36 SUMMARY: May be worth another iteration thinking about this: in particular, distinguishing between original-in-source and original-interpretation-for-transcript. 15:43:47 Subtopic: Add examples of bidi in desc and bidi in p. w3c/dapt#177 15:43:51 github: https://github.com/w3c/dapt/issues/177 15:44:33 Nigel: In the i18n review we realised you can't put bidirectional markup in TTML metadata elements or attributes, but you can put them into content elements 15:45:04 ... The suggestion was, as well as writing notes on how to achieve this, use paired Unicode control characters as a fallback 15:45:26 ... Should we add examples of those into DAPT, to show exactly how this is done, nor ot? 15:46:05 ... Let's do a poll, +1, 0, or -1 15:46:12 +1 15:46:26 +1 15:46:33 (I always think it's good to illustrate stuff) 15:46:55 s/-1/-1 where positive = yes add examples, negative means do not, zero means "don't care" 15:47:04 -1 15:47:13 0 15:47:42 Gary: it sounds like this is a pattern we don't want to encourage 15:48:10 ... If we don't want people to use it unless they have to, I'd lean towards not documenting it, as documenting it would lead more people to doing it 15:48:21 q+ 15:48:27 ack MattS 15:48:30 Nigel: A method for bidirectional text is required, so the question is whether to give an example 15:49:08 Matt: Examples are always good. It's hard to know what is meant when there's just text. And we find many suppliers don't get XML, so having something unambigious is good 15:49:24 ... I've found suppliers asking for examples 15:49:52 Andreas: This is a general issue and if we do examples than may be should to in a separate note. 15:50:06 Matt: I'd second that 15:50:24 +1 15:50:32 +1 15:50:57 SUMMARY: Net vote in TTWG call 2023-08-03 is in favour of adding examples. 15:51:11 Topic: TPAC 2023 Planning 15:51:47 Nigel: I haven't listed the meeting and joint meetings, and haven't done a lot on the agendas 15:53:06 Chris: I need to have a look too. From the MEIG perspective we have a 45 minute slot on the Monday 15:53:08 .. morning. 15:53:29 Nigel: I think we need to use that to talk about IMSC-HRM and DAPT. 15:53:48 Chris: I think there was a suggestion (from Gary?) to talk about the Text Track API 15:54:08 i/Chris/Nigel: Won't have time until end of August to summarise and put in one place, so if someone wants to volunteer? I welcome suggestions for other topics/ 15:55:05 Gary: Yes, we did talk about it, but I probably won't attend 15:55:33 Chris: Happy to include it if someone wants to present or drive that discussion 15:57:26 Topic: Using the ITU BT.2100 PQ EOTF with the PNG Format 15:57:26 -> https://www.w3.org/TR/png-hdr-pq/ Using the ITU BT.2100 PQ EOTF with the PNG Format 15:57:26 Pierre: This WG Note was approved in 2017. At time there was no way to carry PQ encoded images in PNG 15:57:26 ... The Note reflected industry practice, which was to write PQ or HLG pixels and signal use of non-SRGB pixels in PNG 15:57:30 ... There's a PNG 3rd Edition coming soon, with native signalling for HDR pixels, PQ and HLG 15:57:46 ... An issue was filed by Chris Lilley 15:58:35 Pierre: I think this WG needs to review the PR, which deprecates the Note, essentially: https://github.com/w3c/png-hdr-pq/pull/13 15:58:49 ... There's no way in the Process to obsolete a Note 15:58:53 https://github.com/w3c/png-hdr-pq/pull/13 15:59:00 github: https://github.com/w3c/png-hdr-pq/pull/13 15:59:07 ... Give a month for review? 15:59:16 Nigel: Thank you for calling our attention to this 15:59:31 ... I have no objection to deprecating if it's no longer needed 15:59:50 Pierre: There are files out there that use it, but makes sense to deprecate for new files 16:00:22 Nigel: Versioning 16:01:08 Pierre: Systems use the magic string. For new systems, the recommendation is to use the new signalling capabilities in PNG which new implementations can look for 16:01:56 ... We can't remove the document because of existing usage 16:01:59 Nigel: Makes sense 16:02:00 SUMMARY: TTWG alerted to the need to review this pull request 16:02:13 Topic: Meeting close 16:02:35 Nigel: Next meeting is not in 2 weeks time, instead it's August 31 16:02:47 ... Have a good 4 weeks! 16:04:21 Atsushi: Don't forget to register for TPAC if you're attending, and book hotel rooms etc. 16:04:51 everyone expresses warm wishes to each other over the short summer break 16:05:09 Nigel: Let's adjourn for today. Thanks again Chris for scribing. [adjourns meeting] 16:05:38 s/Versioning/Presumably there's versioning information in the PNG, and people using older versions still need to reference this Note? 16:05:47 rrsagent, make minutes 16:05:49 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/08/03-tt-minutes.html nigel 16:17:00 s/or add something ??/or add other values to the enumeration 16:18:54 rrsagent, make minutes 16:18:55 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/08/03-tt-minutes.html nigel 16:23:01 scribeOptions: -final -noEmbedDiagnostics 16:23:05 zakim, end meeting 16:23:05 As of this point the attendees have been Andreas, Gary, Pierre, Nigel, Chris, Atsushi, Matt 16:23:07 RRSAgent, please draft minutes v2 16:23:08 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/08/03-tt-minutes.html Zakim 16:23:44 I am happy to have been of service, nigel; please remember to excuse RRSAgent. Goodbye 16:23:44 Zakim has left #tt 16:24:18 rrsagent, excuse us 16:24:18 I see no action items