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