16:01:56 RRSAgent has joined #tt 16:02:00 logging to https://www.w3.org/2024/01/18-tt-irc 16:02:03 RRSAgent, make logs Public 16:02:04 Meeting: Timed Text Working Group Teleconference 16:02:06 Agenda: https://github.com/w3c/ttwg/issues/273 16:02:17 Previous meeting: https://www.w3.org/2023/12/21-tt-minutes.html 16:02:48 Present: Matt, Nigel, Pierre, Chris_Needham, Mike, Andreas 16:02:51 Chair: Nigel 16:03:17 Present+ Atsushi 16:03:22 Present+ Cyril 16:03:53 scribe+ nigel 16:03:55 scribe+ cpn 16:04:02 atai has joined #tt 16:04:04 Topic: This meeting 16:04:53 Nigel: Two main things today, IMSC HRM and transition request to PR, and DAPT topics for discussion. Anything else to add? 16:05:18 (nothing) 16:05:24 Topic: IMSC HRM 16:06:04 Nigel: I raised a CfC on a pull request that Pierre opened. We discussed in last meeting, but made some last minute editorial changes 16:06:36 ... e.g., to definitions and references to external specs. I sent the CfC a week ago, the decision period ends on 25th January 16:07:02 ... This is an opportunity to raise discussion points. The implementation report is important to show we've met CR exit criteria 16:07:27 ... Atsushi has reviewed, and made some changes, making it easier for others outside the group to follow 16:07:42 ... Decision to be made about publication date. 16:08:06 -> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tt/2024Jan/0000.html CfC Email 2024-01-18 16:08:30 -> https://github.com/w3c/imsc-hrm/pull/77 Pull request of Proposed Recommendation version 16:08:37 Atsushi: The transition review was held on Friday, so if we send the request on 25 or 26, considering the required period, the review might come in February 16:08:52 ... After approval, publication will be on a Tuesday or Thursday 16:10:09 Pierre: There's a CR end date that we may have to set manually 16:10:19 ... I guess that would be next week 16:10:41 Nigel: The CR end date says 23/07/20, maybe that was from the first CR? 16:11:01 Atsushi: Each snapshot has a review opportunity, so that period should be 60 days 16:11:20 Nigel: Looking at the history, first CR snapshot was 22 June 2023 16:12:01 ... The other date that's more concerning is 11 January 2024. I don't know where that comes from 16:12:11 ... That's like an AC review close date 16:12:26 Atsushi: There's a 4 week comment period 16:13:16 ... for Proposed Recommendation there are several dates. AC review should be 4 weeks 16:13:30 s/22 June 2023/22 June 2023 and that sets a no-earlier-than date of 2023-07-20 so that's where that date comes from 16:13:49 https://w3c.github.io/spec-releases/milestones/?pr=2024-01-30 16:14:23 Nigel: May need setting manually, if we can't set the date in ReSpec. Atsushi, is that something you can do? 16:14:48 Pierre: It would help me if you can put the dates we want in the pull request, and I'll look at the ReSpec 16:14:54 https://w3c.github.io/imsc-hrm/spec/imsc-hrm.html?specStatus=PR 16:15:15 Atsushi: Changing status and publication should work. The date would be set automatically 16:15:57 Nigel: Any thoughts or comments on the substance of the report, before we make a WG decision to request transition to PR? 16:16:02 q+ 16:16:07 ack cpn 16:16:26 Chris: I had a look at the implementation report and have two questions. 16:16:40 .. One is: does the report need to show traceability to spec sections? 16:16:55 .. The report has a comprehensive list of test cases where each test case describes what it is testing 16:17:08 .. but I did not see a link to section numbers or feature definitions in the spec. 16:17:25 .. Second question: when we discussed the Charter and there was a lot of focus on the CR Exit Criteria, 16:17:35 .. was there a concern raised about the use of human generated content? 16:17:45 .. I note the test suite is human authored content. Maybe I'm misremembering. 16:17:57 .. I think one of the reviewers wanted to see machine generated content being tested. 16:18:24 Nigel: The test suite content is fine to be human authored. I don't think anyone was arguing otherwise 16:18:39 ... It shows deliberate authoring to test features in the spec. That's normal 16:18:57 ... Those synthetic tests are useful for verifying a valid implementation is behaving correctly 16:19:27 ... What people wanted in the tests is on the authoring side tooling - so if we're asserting that the presence of large amounts of content meet the authoring requirements of HRM, 16:19:54 ... what they wanted to see was an implementation on the authoring side. It mattered not that the content was human generated, but a human was using a tool 16:21:02 ... When there are two sides: a producer and a consumer, and here the consumer is the validator, and the spec has requirements on the interface. Some reviewers wanted us to show there's a software implementation as producer 16:21:41 -> https://www.w3.org/wiki/TimedText/IMSC-HRM-1ED-Implementation-Report Implementation Report 16:21:45 Chris: Thanks, that makes sense. And the point about traceability? 16:22:34 Pierre: When we generated the unit tests, the goal was to get coverage of the spec. It should cover the entire spec, but the report doesn't have an explicit mapping 16:22:44 ... If we feel it's important, we can add it 16:24:55 Nigel: The report says each test contains a description. So two concerns here: checking that the test suite adequately tests the requirements, and then understanding [...] 16:25:32 ... In the past we've included feature designators as a pointer to what that test exercises. May be a lot of work, but I guess it's possible 16:26:04 Pierre: There may not be a mapping between sections and test. Chris, do you think the descriptions in the tests are sufficient? 16:26:21 Chris: I think the descriptions are good so I would say they are sufficient. 16:26:33 .. I understand from reading the specification that there is not a simple 1:1 mapping. 16:26:50 .. I'm not here to try to ask you to do extra work! 16:27:01 .. Just pre-empting potential feedback. 16:27:39 Nigel: Wondering if it's possible to do a simple copy/paste, but may make the table unwieldy 16:28:11 Pierre: Does the table have a link to the document itself? Then it would be trivial to click through to see the descriptions 16:28:26 ... I also want to avoid duplicating information, things can get out of sync in the future 16:28:56 Nigel: Do you think that would help AC reviewers? 16:29:33 Chris: Yes I think that would be a helpful addition. 16:29:50 .. I also note that in the interest of avoiding duplication, the pass tests also correspond to a fail test, 16:30:05 .. and the description is not always in both tests of the pair. 16:31:09 Nigel: So we could put the pass and fail test in a single row 16:31:16 Nigel: A potential restructuring would be to put the pass and fail pairs onto the same row 16:31:25 s/Nigel: A potential restructuring would be to put the pass and fail pairs onto the same row// 16:31:57 Pierre: We could add full description to the pass test, and link them. But I wouldn't combine them into the same row, as there may not always be both 16:32:07 ... But happy to add links, and descriptions to the pass files 16:32:24 Present+ Gary 16:32:27 Chair: Nigel, Gary 16:32:27 Nigel: Anyone else have questions? 16:32:43 (none) 16:33:07 Nigel: Is it a good idea for you to start preparing the transition request? It might expose other questions you have 16:33:16 s/Is it/Atsushi, is it 16:33:18 Atsushi: I can do that, but I don't think I have any further items 16:34:15 ... There's a Changes section from last CR, no need for another horizontal review. We're now in CfC, wide review should be finished, so I don't think there's anything else than preparing the IR report 16:34:54 https://w3c.github.io/imsc-hrm/spec/imsc-hrm.html?specStatus=PR&publishDate=2024-01-30&prEnd=2024-02-27 16:35:03 Nigel: You have one week to raise questions, but if noone comments, I'll request the transition after that. 16:35:25 Atsushi: Some Respec configuration changes, for /TR publication 16:35:39 Nigel: That's fine, of course 16:36:08 Nigel: The pull request changes the spec status already, but we don't know when the transition review will happen or how long 16:36:26 Pierre: Please comment in the PR and I'm happy to add those dates 16:37:17 ... It would be great if the release on GitHub would match the publication date, so I'd like to have the dates in the PR and make the changes 16:37:44 ... I'll work on the IR and test suite descriptions 16:37:53 ... Thank you all for your help with this 16:39:02 -> https://github.com/w3c/imsc-hrm-tests/issues/14 Action for Pierre to add descriptions to tests where they're missing 16:39:34 Topic: DAPT 16:39:58 Nigel: Last publication was on 23 December. All the work on language was merged 16:40:17 ... Some additional PRs have been opened or commented on since 16:41:36 ... No issues labeled as agenda, so looks like we're progressing to CR. Cyril, anything to raise on DAPT? 16:41:40 Cyril: Not really. 16:42:22 Nigel: Issues remaining are mainly editorial. There are some questions listed as CR must-have, and some are choices, especially wrt embedded audio resources, referenced audio, and encodings 16:43:00 ... Absent any implementation experience to help answer those, maybe the thing to do is list those as at-risk. If we get experience to settle on a preferred subset, we can remove the others 16:43:06 ... Does that sound like a reasonable plan? 16:43:25 Cyril: I think so. We should try to resolves all the ones we can, though. 16:43:56 Nigel: I expect you'll continue work on the PRs, Cyril 16:44:42 Cyril: I mentioned a few weeks ago I was working on open sourcing a library and open content. This is progressing, hope to announce something soon, Feb or March. 16:44:48 s/you'll/you and I will 16:45:06 ... We should have a variant of Neflix Meridian content, with dubbing and AD 16:45:15 Nigel: That's really positive, thanks 16:45:39 Nigel: If there's no other business, we can close the meeting 16:45:45 ... Thank you everybody 16:46:03 Topic: Next meeting 16:46:15 Nigel: I have a conflict in 2 weeks time 16:46:38 ... We could have a meeting if need be, may need Gary to chair 16:46:56 Gary: I don't know if I can 16:47:26 Nigel: We may not have much to discuss, so let's see what we have 16:48:38 i/Nigel: If/Topic: Meeting close 16:48:52 Nigel: For now, let's adjourn. Thank you everyone. [adjourns meeting] 16:48:58 rrsagent, make minutes 16:48:59 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/01/18-tt-minutes.html nigel 16:56:43 s/Topic: Next meeting 16:57:31 s/Meeting close/Next meeting and meeting close 16:58:16 s/The transition review was held on Friday/The transition reviews are held on Fridays 17:00:18 s/but a human was using a tool/rather that a human was using a software tool 17:00:51 s/spec has requirements on the interface/spec defines requirements for the data passing over the interface 17:01:59 s/and then understanding [...]/and then understanding what each test exercises 17:02:46 s/In the past we've included feature designators as a pointer to what that test exercises./In the past specs like TTML define feature designators that are in the IR as pointers to what that test exercises. 17:03:16 s/May be a lot of work, but I guess it's possible/May be a lot of work, but I guess it's possible to add descriptions to the table 17:04:07 s/Do you think that would help AC reviewers?/Do you think that [linking the test filenames to the files in the repo] would help AC reviewers? 17:05:09 s/I'll request the transition after that/I'll declare consensus for a WG Decision and we can request the transition after that 17:06:00 s/TR publication/TR publication (in IRC above) 17:19:36 rrsagent, make minutes 17:19:38 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/01/18-tt-minutes.html nigel 17:24:28 atai has joined #tt 17:24:58 s/Topic: Next meeting// 17:24:59 rrsagent, make minutes 17:25:00 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/01/18-tt-minutes.html nigel 17:25:41 s|s/|| 17:25:44 s/Topic: Next meeting// 17:25:46 rrsagent, make minutes 17:25:47 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/01/18-tt-minutes.html nigel 17:26:17 scribeOptions: -final -noEmbedDiagnostics 17:26:20 zakim, end meeting 17:26:20 As of this point the attendees have been Matt, Nigel, Pierre, Chris_Needham, Mike, Andreas, Atsushi, Cyril, Gary 17:26:22 RRSAgent, please draft minutes v2 17:26:24 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/01/18-tt-minutes.html Zakim 17:26:30 I am happy to have been of service, nigel; please remember to excuse RRSAgent. Goodbye 17:26:30 Zakim has left #tt 17:29:09 atai1 has joined #tt 17:29:11 atai1 has left #tt 17:40:32 rrsagent, excuse us 17:40:32 I see no action items