IRC log of tt on 2023-11-23

Timestamps are in UTC.

15:59:52 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #tt
15:59:57 [RRSAgent]
logging to https://www.w3.org/2023/11/23-tt-irc
15:59:57 [Zakim]
RRSAgent, make logs Public
15:59:58 [Zakim]
Meeting: Timed Text Working Group Teleconference
16:00:12 [nigel]
Agenda: https://github.com/w3c/ttwg/issues/269
16:00:22 [nigel]
Previous meeting: https://www.w3.org/2023/11/09-tt-minutes.html
16:00:26 [nigel]
scribe: nigel
16:00:27 [pal]
pal has joined #tt
16:00:56 [nigel]
Present: Nigel, Matt, Pierre
16:01:06 [nigel]
Regrets: Andreas, Cyril
16:01:14 [MattS]
MattS has joined #tt
16:01:16 [nigel]
Present+ Gary
16:01:21 [nigel]
Chair: Gary, Nigel
16:03:20 [nigel]
Topic: This meeting
16:03:28 [nigel]
Present+ Atsushi
16:03:47 [nigel]
Nigel: On the agenda today we have:
16:04:03 [nigel]
.. Some issues and pull requests relating to IMSC-HRM
16:04:17 [nigel]
.. The Registry pull request for DAPT
16:04:18 [atsushi]
atsushi has joined #tt
16:04:29 [nigel]
.. There may be some other details about those two specs to look at too
16:04:43 [nigel]
.. Is there any other business, or points to make sure we cover within those topics?
16:05:13 [nigel]
Topic: IMSC-HRM
16:05:51 [nigel]
Nigel: I'm a bit sheepish that I'm just raising issues at the moment when we said we are about
16:05:55 [nigel]
.. to request exit from CR.
16:06:53 [nigel]
.. The background is I only just got around to doing implementation work for it and that helped
16:06:57 [nigel]
.. me spot some things.
16:07:47 [nigel]
.. One of the changes was a clarification about glyph processing in IMSC-HRM itself.
16:07:53 [nigel]
Pierre: I think it's a good clarification
16:08:37 [nigel]
-> https://github.com/w3c/imsc-hrm/pull/71 Clarify the behavior for duplicate glyphs w3c/imsc-hrm#71
16:09:01 [nigel]
Nigel: I think we could discuss if that's purely editorial or needs 2 week review
16:09:11 [nigel]
Pierre: I think the risk of closing today is minimal given where we are.
16:09:18 [nigel]
.. I would support merging it today.
16:11:32 [nigel]
Nigel: [shares diff on zoom]
16:11:42 [nigel]
.. Any objections to merging today?
16:11:51 [nigel]
group: no objections
16:12:11 [nigel]
Nigel: I think we have adequate consensus for that, please go ahead and merge it.
16:12:14 [nigel]
Pierre: doing that now
16:13:17 [nigel]
Pierre: On issue 69 I think it's worth adding a note and would like your opinion
16:13:39 [nigel]
-> https://github.com/w3c/imsc-hrm/issues/69 Note on document changes at every frame of the related video w3c/imsc-hrm#69
16:13:58 [nigel]
Pierre: This is related to converting from 608. The HRM document references 608
16:14:02 [nigel]
.. in the context of the glyph cache.
16:14:11 [nigel]
.. At first I thought this could be the subject of a separate conversion document,
16:14:26 [nigel]
.. but since there's a reference I plan to add an informative note where the spec talks
16:14:29 [nigel]
.. about 608 and 708.
16:14:51 [nigel]
Gary: That makes sense to me. I've seen lots of related issues where naive implementations
16:14:56 [nigel]
.. make a change on every character.
16:15:06 [nigel]
Pierre: I tried to write the note a couple of times yesterday.
16:15:20 [nigel]
.. Rather than broadly discussing conversion, I think it's best to say that the HRM does not
16:15:24 [nigel]
.. support one document per field.
16:15:34 [nigel]
.. At some point we could write a WG Note with guidelines for conversion.
16:15:42 [nigel]
Gary: There is an old document for 608 and 708 into WebVTT.
16:15:54 [nigel]
.. It's probably worth brushing it off and updating it or using it as inspiration for a new document,
16:16:02 [nigel]
.. and including both IMSC and WebVTT.
16:16:19 [nigel]
Pierre: My other favourite problem is exact region sizing for the number of characters.
16:17:01 [nigel]
.. I'll propose a PR with that note.
16:17:12 [nigel]
.. The other thing we need to address is 2 outstanding issues in the CR of IMSC-HRM.
16:17:19 [nigel]
.. The first is image profile being at risk.
16:17:30 [nigel]
.. I'm pretty comfortable with removing it before we move forward.
16:17:35 [nigel]
.. I've seen zero interest.
16:17:41 [nigel]
.. We can always add it back in the future.
16:17:52 [nigel]
.. If someone has a significant objection it would be good to know.
16:18:08 [nigel]
.. Unless there's new information I recommend removing support for image profile from this version of IMSC-HRM.
16:18:55 [nigel]
.. The second is, in section 5 relating to the complexity of drawing span elements with background colour.
16:19:06 [nigel]
.. The way IMSC-HRM is currently specified is the way it's been forever.
16:19:28 [nigel]
.. I had concerns that this would fail documents that contain a large number of spans with background colour.
16:19:36 [nigel]
.. So far, in all the tests that I've seen, it's never been an issue.
16:19:51 [nigel]
.. I'm tempting to err on the side of no change and closing #5 as "will not fix".
16:20:31 [nigel]
-> https://github.com/w3c/imsc-hrm/issues/5 span elements are included in NBG(R_i) w3c/imsc-hrm#5
16:20:59 [nigel]
Pierre: I think we can note in the implementation report that we have seen no documents that
16:21:10 [nigel]
.. conform to image profile, in support of removing that feature.
16:21:33 [nigel]
.. Secondly, that outstanding issue #5, where the HRM as currently written has not resulted in issues
16:21:45 [nigel]
.. with background colour, so I'm comfortable with closing as will not fix.
16:21:59 [nigel]
Nigel: I want to spend time reminding myself about issue 5.
16:22:22 [nigel]
.. I have no objection to removing the at-risk image profile feature.
16:22:54 [nigel]
.. I think there are people using image profile, but they haven't been engaged with the HRM.
16:23:05 [nigel]
Pierre: I agree, I think they use it in closed systems and the HRM is not relevant for them.
16:23:27 [nigel]
Nigel: It would be nice to have a positive statement about that;
16:23:38 [nigel]
.. working on lack of feedback is a weaker position to be in.
16:23:53 [nigel]
Pierre: It's really easy to plug back in if we need to, without affecting anyone else that was happy.
16:24:06 [nigel]
.. That's a different situation for issue 5.
16:24:55 [nigel]
Nigel: I see that issue 51 is assigned to me, I think I need to double check that and hopefully close with no change.
16:25:09 [nigel]
Pierre: We should try to plan on requesting transition before the end of the year.
16:25:54 [nigel]
Nigel: Then we need a resolution in our call in two weeks' time, so that the Decision review period is
16:26:02 [nigel]
.. over by the time of the following meeting.
16:26:40 [nigel]
Subtopic: IMSC-HRM Tests
16:27:26 [nigel]
Nigel: I raised two issues, and we have pull requests for both.
16:27:39 [nigel]
.. The first was #3 where there were p elements with no associated region.
16:27:45 [nigel]
.. I wondered if it was deliberate.
16:27:59 [nigel]
Pierre: Remembering my process for creating them, I'm pretty sure it was a copy/paste error.
16:28:07 [nigel]
Nigel: Ok, we have an open pull request for that.
16:28:32 [nigel]
.. Then the other one was about having the tests be conformant with more sub-profiles.
16:28:54 [nigel]
.. In particular EBU-TT-D, but 2 of the tests also aren't conformant IMSC 1.0.1 because they
16:29:10 [nigel]
.. use prohibited features e.g. textShadow that are permitted in v1.1.
16:29:23 [nigel]
.. I opened a pull request for that also.
16:30:13 [nigel]
-> https://github.com/w3c/imsc-hrm-tests/pull/6 Make tests EBU-TT-D compatible w3c/imsc-hrm-tests#6
16:30:41 [nigel]
Nigel: I take it from your approval that you agree they don't make any substantive difference, these changes.
16:30:44 [nigel]
Pierre: Correct.
16:31:39 [nigel]
Nigel: For tests, I think we can probably go ahead and merge soon.
16:31:46 [nigel]
.. Anyone want extra review time for these?
16:31:53 [nigel]
group: no
16:34:14 [nigel]
Nigel: For the test documents that cannot be IMSC 1.0.1 or EBU-TT-D conformant I just added an XML comment
16:34:17 [nigel]
.. to explain that.
16:34:26 [nigel]
Pierre: I'm happy to merge both of these.
16:34:43 [nigel]
.. I'd prefer to do them both in order
16:34:53 [nigel]
Nigel: That's fine I'll rebase the second one after the first is merged, after the call.
16:34:56 [nigel]
Pierre: OK thanks.
16:35:46 [nigel]
Topic: DAPT
16:36:01 [nigel]
Nigel: We got a positive HR review from TAG.
16:36:29 [nigel]
.. We are still waiting for APA and Security
16:36:48 [nigel]
.. APA has almost completed, they are just doing a CfC to check if they want to ask for an
16:37:07 [nigel]
.. increased emphasis on client side players offering audio description mixing options to users,
16:37:13 [nigel]
.. for example to change the levels.
16:37:29 [nigel]
.. I've told them we might do that anyway, because it's a good idea.
16:37:54 [nigel]
Atsushi: For Security review, usually they almost never provide review comments, so usually
16:38:03 [nigel]
.. we can pass without comment from security to go to CR.
16:38:20 [nigel]
Nigel: Oh, that's annoying, ok. At least a "we have finished" response would be nice.
16:38:43 [nigel]
Atsushi: I plan to open a CR transition request issue when Editors and Chairs are satisfied to go to CR
16:38:55 [nigel]
.. and we have positive HR and WR responses.
16:39:04 [nigel]
Nigel: Good, yes, thank you, that would be great.
16:39:16 [nigel]
Atsushi: Don't wait for the Security review in order to proceed.
16:39:27 [nigel]
Nigel: Ok, we won't, thank you.
16:40:42 [nigel]
.. There's one pull request to look at, which I hope to merge today.
16:40:53 [MattS]
MattS has joined #tt
16:40:56 [nigel]
-> https://github.com/w3c/dapt/pull/196 Add inline Registry Section w3c/dapt#196
16:41:03 [nigel]
.. Thank you for the review comments.
16:41:24 [nigel]
.. The one late change is in the requesting a change section, thanks to Atsushi's comments.
16:43:01 [nigel]
.. [shows commit ef4ac7e8293fb83891e5717ed7599cea734c8515 on zoom]
16:43:18 [nigel]
.. I'm getting "that's an improvement nods" from Matt and Gary. Atsushi?
16:43:27 [nigel]
Atsushi: I believe that's a great change, makes things clearer.
16:43:50 [nigel]
Nigel: In that case I will go ahead and merge this following enough review time, unless anyone
16:43:55 [nigel]
.. wants to ask for more time now.
16:50:04 [nigel]
group: no request for more time.
16:50:18 [nigel]
Nigel: That's all on DAPT for today.
16:50:22 [nigel]
Topic: Meeting Close
16:50:44 [nigel]
Nigel: Thanks all, we've completed our agenda for today. See you in 2 weeks. [adjourns meeting]
16:50:47 [nigel]
rrsagent, make minutes
16:50:49 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/11/23-tt-minutes.html nigel
16:55:06 [nigel]
scribeOptions: -final -noEmbedDiagnostics
16:55:10 [nigel]
zakim, end meeting
16:55:10 [Zakim]
As of this point the attendees have been Nigel, Matt, Pierre, Gary, Atsushi
16:55:12 [Zakim]
RRSAgent, please draft minutes v2
16:55:13 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/11/23-tt-minutes.html Zakim
16:55:49 [Zakim]
I am happy to have been of service, nigel; please remember to excuse RRSAgent. Goodbye
16:55:49 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #tt
16:57:59 [nigel]
rrsagent, excuse us
16:57:59 [RRSAgent]
I see no action items