IRC log of tt on 2023-12-21
Timestamps are in UTC.
- 16:01:10 [RRSAgent]
- RRSAgent has joined #tt
- 16:01:14 [RRSAgent]
- logging to https://www.w3.org/2023/12/21-tt-irc
- 16:01:14 [Zakim]
- RRSAgent, make logs Public
- 16:01:15 [Zakim]
- Meeting: Timed Text Working Group Teleconference
- 16:01:25 [nigel]
- Present: Andreas, Atsushi, Gary, Nigel
- 16:01:27 [nigel]
- scribe: nigel
- 16:01:31 [nigel]
- Chair: Gary, Nigel
- 16:01:54 [nigel]
- Previous meeting: https://www.w3.org/2023/12/07-tt-minutes.html
- 16:02:01 [nigel]
- Agenda: https://github.com/w3c/ttwg/issues/271
- 16:02:06 [nigel]
- rrsagent, make minutes
- 16:02:07 [RRSAgent]
- I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/12/21-tt-minutes.html nigel
- 16:03:17 [nigel]
- Present+ Pierre
- 16:03:21 [nigel]
- Topic: This meeting
- 16:03:42 [nigel]
- Nigel: Today we have IMSC-HRM, DAPT and any other business
- 16:04:05 [nigel]
- .. In AOB we should mention the next meeting and gauge likely attendance.
- 16:04:05 [atai]
- atai has joined #tt
- 16:04:12 [nigel]
- .. Any other other business?
- 16:04:26 [nigel]
- Present+ Cyril
- 16:04:43 [nigel]
- no other business
- 16:04:45 [nigel]
- Topic: IMSC-HRM
- 16:04:49 [nigel]
- Pierre: We're done!
- 16:04:55 [nigel]
- Nigel: Wow, I think I agree.
- 16:05:17 [nigel]
- Pierre: There are two boxes in the implementation report that are labelled as n/a for the EBU-TT Live implementation
- 16:05:25 [nigel]
- .. Do you know what that's about?
- 16:05:52 [nigel]
- Nigel: Yes. I updated the implementation report to add the second validating implementation,
- 16:06:04 [nigel]
- .. and I did put a note about the n/a entries.
- 16:06:18 [nigel]
- .. The reason is that they stress parts of the HRM that are not valid in EBU-TT-D.
- 16:06:37 [nigel]
- .. Specifically style attributes that form part of the glyph tuple, but are prohibited in EBU-TT-D.
- 16:06:51 [nigel]
- .. That means that the test documents cannot be loaded into the object model, because
- 16:07:05 [nigel]
- .. they give an instant validation failure, even before attempting to process against the HRM.
- 16:08:02 [nigel]
- .. There is provision for this in the IMSC-HRM spec, because something similar applies to IMSC 1.0.1
- 16:08:14 [nigel]
- Pierre: Okay, the other thing is we need to remove the Image profile features before moving
- 16:08:27 [nigel]
- .. to the next stage. I wanted to get group views on that.
- 16:08:32 [nigel]
- Cyril: What's the reason for that?
- 16:08:43 [nigel]
- Pierre: We don't have implementations, users or implementation report entries,
- 16:08:51 [nigel]
- .. and it's been marked at risk.
- 16:09:06 [nigel]
- .. I asked if anyone has a library of image profile IMSC documents but nobody has come forward.
- 16:09:32 [nigel]
- Cyril: At Netflix we do use image based captions and we have an IMSC-like manifest so potentially
- 16:09:44 [nigel]
- .. I could test against it. But I don't have any objection to removing it from the specification.
- 16:09:56 [nigel]
- Pierre: imscHRM would need to add capabilities for it.
- 16:10:11 [nigel]
- .. Unless someone is using it for interchange and wants to see it in imscHrm implementation
- 16:10:17 [nigel]
- .. I am not excited to agonise over it.
- 16:10:36 [nigel]
- Nigel: More importantly, should we wait, or move now with what we have?
- 16:10:45 [nigel]
- Cyril: We can always add it back in later.
- 16:10:55 [nigel]
- Pierre: Absolutely, it's being removed without prejudice.
- 16:10:59 [nigel]
- Cyril: No objection from me.
- 16:11:03 [nigel]
- Nigel: Nor me.
- 16:11:06 [atsushi]
- +1
- 16:11:13 [nigel]
- Andreas: Fine with me.
- 16:11:24 [nigel]
- Atsushi: No objection
- 16:11:46 [pal]
- pal has joined #tt
- 16:11:55 [nigel]
- Gary: Sounds good to me.
- 16:12:04 [nigel]
- RESOLUTION: Remove the at-risk image profile feature from IMSC-HRM
- 16:12:11 [nigel]
- Pierre: Good, I'll do that.
- 16:12:23 [nigel]
- .. Also, I will remove the editorial note pointing to the open issue.
- 16:12:31 [nigel]
- .. We will leave it open but not fix in this version of imsc-hrm
- 16:13:06 [nigel]
- .. It's w3c/imsc-hrm#5 - it has not been an issue so I did nothing about it.
- 16:13:38 [nigel]
- Nigel: Yes, it felt like we were overestimating complexity but in practice everything has passed.
- 16:13:51 [nigel]
- Pierre: We should keep it open but note that we are not addressing it in imsc-hrm v1.
- 16:14:02 [nigel]
- Nigel: I think I will propose something different.
- 16:14:16 [nigel]
- .. I think we should close on the basis that we haven't demonstrated that there's a real world problem.
- 16:14:31 [nigel]
- .. If later someone says they have documents that they think should pass, but which don't,
- 16:14:45 [nigel]
- .. then at that stage we should investigate and open an issue based on the investigation, and there's
- 16:15:01 [nigel]
- .. a chance it could be this cause, so we could reopen or open a new issue. But right now
- 16:15:11 [nigel]
- .. this is not a demonstrated real world problem.
- 16:15:17 [nigel]
- Pierre: I'm fine with that.
- 16:15:26 [nigel]
- .. We should note it as a comment, or record what we just discussed.
- 16:16:44 [nigel]
- Nigel: We spent a lot of time on that issue, but I think it gets trumped by the implementation experience.
- 16:16:56 [nigel]
- Gary: We could post this on the issue, wait a short while and then close if nobody objects.
- 16:16:57 [nigel]
- Nigel: +1
- 16:17:42 [nigel]
- .. I will add a pointer to this conversation to the issue after the meeting and propose to close it with no change.
- 16:18:41 [nigel]
- .. I will also review issue 51, but I think we're fine there and can close without action.
- 16:19:15 [nigel]
- .. Then issue 47 is purely editorial to do with term definitions.
- 16:19:30 [nigel]
- .. Pierre, should we do anything about those issues?
- 16:19:36 [nigel]
- Pierre: Not unless we're forced to.
- 16:20:17 [nigel]
- .. I'm going to concentrate on removing image profile, and the note referencing issue 5.
- 16:20:22 [nigel]
- Nigel: OK, sounds good.
- 16:20:48 [nigel]
- .. In terms of requesting transition to CR, we need to see the updated document before proposing
- 16:20:55 [nigel]
- .. to move forward.
- 16:21:23 [nigel]
- Pierre: In terms of that, I'd encourage a call for consensus whenever we have the document ready,
- 16:21:27 [nigel]
- .. rather than waiting for a meeting.
- 16:21:37 [nigel]
- Nigel: I will wait until we have the document ready.
- 16:22:13 [nigel]
- Pierre: I will try to get it done by tomorrow.
- 16:22:21 [nigel]
- Nigel: Given the season, we should extend the CfC review period.
- 16:22:29 [nigel]
- Pierre: Agree, that's fine.
- 16:22:36 [nigel]
- .. Nothing should be surprising here. The risk is limited.
- 16:22:39 [nigel]
- Nigel: +1
- 16:23:13 [nigel]
- .. In terms of the tests we now have no open issues or pull requests.
- 16:23:40 [nigel]
- Pierre: Thanks to you we now have working implementations for them all, so I think we're good.
- 16:23:51 [nigel]
- Nigel: We even have an extra test that we didn't at first envisage.
- 16:24:00 [nigel]
- s/all/all, with bugs fixed,
- 16:24:09 [nigel]
- s/,,/,
- 16:24:35 [nigel]
- Nigel: A nice point to get to at the end of the year.
- 16:24:39 [nigel]
- .. Any more on IMSC-HRM?
- 16:24:45 [nigel]
- Topic: DAPT
- 16:25:22 [nigel]
- The only agenda topic in https://github.com/w3c/dapt/labels/agenda is the open pull request
- 16:25:29 [nigel]
- s/The only/Nigel: The only
- 16:26:22 [nigel]
- .. which we now have approvals for, barring some minor editorial tweaks.
- 16:26:33 [nigel]
- .. Thanks especially to Cyril and Andreas for reviewing so many iterations.
- 16:26:44 [nigel]
- .. Hopefully that's a process success rather than an editorial failure!
- 16:26:55 [nigel]
- Andreas: Thanks Nigel for processing so many comments.
- 16:27:16 [nigel]
- s/!/! I think it's a good team effort regardless.
- 16:27:34 [nigel]
- Cyril: It's a big change and reviewing the diffs is very tricky - I had to have multiple tabs open.
- 16:27:40 [nigel]
- .. I don't know if there's a better way.
- 16:27:55 [nigel]
- Andreas: I had the same setup, I did wonder if we should have a separate call to agree on resolutions
- 16:28:08 [nigel]
- .. that we then apply to the spec. I think you did a great job Nigel, but there were some issues where
- 16:28:18 [nigel]
- .. you proposed a solution and then applied it throughout the document. Sometimes you need to
- 16:28:24 [nigel]
- .. review the complete sections again.
- 16:29:44 [nigel]
- Nigel: Yes, there were some changes introduced along the journey that I ended up deleting,
- 16:30:01 [nigel]
- .. big blocks of text that had no basis in the issue, which I didn't realise without the review comments.
- 16:30:13 [nigel]
- .. It's a shame that PR preview doesn't do the example inclusion properly.
- 16:30:21 [nigel]
- Cyril: Yes, the examples make a big difference.
- 16:31:37 [nigel]
- Nigel: One thing I use that could help with review is functionality that may be extensions to VS Code
- 16:31:51 [nigel]
- .. that allow me to review and add GitHub comments to the pull request, and preview the whole
- 16:32:06 [nigel]
- .. document locally including all the examples. Might help with future reviews.
- 16:32:31 [nigel]
- .. My plan for this now is to process the tiny editorial comments remaining, and go ahead and merge.
- 16:34:19 [nigel]
- Subtopic: Next steps
- 16:34:46 [nigel]
- Nigel: We have some new editorial issues, including those raised by DVW, thanks for that.
- 16:34:55 [nigel]
- Cyril: Can external contributors comment in discussions?
- 16:34:57 [nigel]
- Nigel: I can't tell
- 16:35:07 [nigel]
- Atsushi: I don't know but I believe anyone can post there, like a normal issue.
- 16:35:13 [nigel]
- Gary: That's what I would expect by default
- 16:35:34 [nigel]
- Nigel: The reason we're asking is we had a report from someone who said they could not comment.
- 16:35:39 [nigel]
- Atsushi: Let me try a test account later.
- 16:35:52 [nigel]
- Cyril: I don't know if it's someone with a GitHub account, or someone who doesn't have a GitHub account
- 16:35:57 [nigel]
- .. and doesn't know how to use it.
- 16:36:11 [nigel]
- Atsushi: Yes, GitHub account is mandatory. I thought the discussion is whether one needs a W3C account
- 16:36:18 [nigel]
- .. linked to a GitHub account or not, I'm not sure.
- 16:36:30 [nigel]
- Cyril: I will ask a colleague if they can try to post a test message.
- 16:36:46 [nigel]
- Gary: I'm looking at another repo and I can't see any access restrictions specific to discussions.
- 16:37:24 [nigel]
- Nigel: If we can verify that anyone with a GitHub login can comment then we should add a "how to"
- 16:37:31 [nigel]
- .. explainer to the top of the discussion page.
- 16:38:31 [nigel]
- .. One issue we need to discuss maybe in the new year is w3c/dapt#110 which is marked as cr-must-have.
- 16:38:48 [nigel]
- .. It's about extensibility and backwards compatibility but I don't think we've discussed it or gone
- 16:38:53 [nigel]
- .. through the permutations properly.
- 16:39:42 [nigel]
- .. Then there are also #75 and #44 about script-type based restrictions and implementation types,
- 16:39:49 [nigel]
- .. which you might have new thoughts on Cyril?
- 16:39:56 [nigel]
- Cyril: I'll look at those.
- 16:40:11 [nigel]
- .. I'm waiting for the languages PR to be merged before rebasing the other PRs otherwise there
- 16:40:15 [nigel]
- .. would be too many conflicts.
- 16:40:27 [nigel]
- Nigel: Understood, that's why I didn't open any more too!
- 16:41:03 [gkatsev]
- github confirms that anyone with read for a repo can participate in discussions, see note at the top https://docs.github.com/en/discussions/collaborating-with-your-community-using-discussions/participating-in-a-discussion
- 16:41:31 [nigel]
- Nigel: Thanks Gary, that's useful to know. So a GitHub login is all that is required.
- 16:42:22 [nigel]
- .. I have people asking me about when to implement, so I'm hoping we can transition to CR in
- 16:42:34 [nigel]
- .. maybe February now that the big things have been dealt with, like language and registries etc.
- 16:42:51 [nigel]
- .. Anything more on DAPT?
- 16:43:12 [nigel]
- Cyril: nothing from me. It's also my goal to work on implementation.
- 16:43:21 [nigel]
- .. That would give me confidence that the spec has at least what I need.
- 16:43:39 [nigel]
- Topic: AOB - next meeting
- 16:44:06 [nigel]
- Nigel: The next meeting scheduled is on 4th Jan - I won't be able to make that.
- 16:44:46 [nigel]
- .. Not sure what people want to do?
- 16:44:52 [nigel]
- Pierre: Next meeting on 18th is fine.
- 16:44:57 [nigel]
- Cyril: Yes. 18th is better.
- 16:45:07 [nigel]
- Gary: I doubt there'll be much to discuss between now and 4th Jan.
- 16:45:16 [nigel]
- .. I think we've skipped it in previous years for similar reasons.
- 16:45:30 [nigel]
- Nigel: Ok, then I will cancel 4th Jan meeting and our next will be 18th Jan.
- 16:45:37 [nigel]
- Topic: Meeting close
- 16:46:10 [nigel]
- Nigel: I just want to say thanks to everyone for all your work this year.
- 16:46:18 [nigel]
- .. If you have a break, then enjoy it, and if you don't, also enjoy it!
- 16:46:26 [nigel]
- .. But thanks everyone, we keep pushing forward.
- 16:46:36 [nigel]
- Gary: Thanks Nigel
- 16:46:42 [nigel]
- Andreas: Yes, thanks a lot Nigel
- 16:46:49 [nigel]
- Atsushi: Happy holidays and new year
- 16:46:54 [nigel]
- Cyril: Happy everything to you all!
- 16:47:04 [nigel]
- Nigel: [adjourns meeting]
- 16:47:12 [nigel]
- rrsagent, make minutes
- 16:47:13 [RRSAgent]
- I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/12/21-tt-minutes.html nigel
- 16:51:51 [nigel]
- scribeOptions: -final -noEmbedDiagnostics
- 16:51:57 [nigel]
- zakim, end meeting
- 16:51:57 [Zakim]
- As of this point the attendees have been Andreas, Atsushi, Gary, Nigel, Pierre, Cyril
- 16:51:59 [Zakim]
- RRSAgent, please draft minutes v2
- 16:52:00 [RRSAgent]
- I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/12/21-tt-minutes.html Zakim
- 16:52:37 [Zakim]
- I am happy to have been of service, nigel; please remember to excuse RRSAgent. Goodbye
- 16:52:37 [Zakim]
- Zakim has left #tt
- 16:53:51 [nigel]
- rrsagent, excuse us
- 16:53:51 [RRSAgent]
- I see no action items