15:59:45 RRSAgent has joined #tt 15:59:49 logging to https://www.w3.org/2024/02/15-tt-irc 15:59:49 RRSAgent, make logs Public 15:59:51 Meeting: Timed Text Working Group Teleconference 15:59:52 Agenda: https://github.com/w3c/ttwg/issues/275 15:59:58 Previous meeting: https://www.w3.org/2024/01/18-tt-minutes.html 16:00:02 scribe: nigel 16:00:05 Present: Nigel 16:01:08 Present+ Matt, Chris 16:01:15 Present+ Atsushi 16:01:21 rrsagent, make minutes 16:01:22 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/02/15-tt-minutes.html nigel 16:01:57 cpn has joined #tt 16:01:59 MattS has joined #tt 16:02:04 present+ Chris_Needham 16:02:31 present+ Pierre 16:02:35 present- Chris 16:02:48 Regrets: Andreas 16:03:09 Topic: This meeting 16:03:25 scribe+ cpn 16:03:31 Topic: Agenda 16:03:47 Nigel: Brief update on IMSC HRM, then DAPT PRs 16:04:02 ... Is there any other business? 16:04:14 (nothing) 16:04:19 Topic: IMSC HRM 16:04:38 Nigel: Since we last met, some things have happened 16:04:47 ... We agreed the proposal to request transition to PR 16:05:00 ... Atsushi raised a transition request, which I reviewed 16:05:04 Present+ Cyril 16:05:23 ... We hadn't included the correct wording in SotD to make it an updateable Recommendation 16:05:51 ... This allows us to add features once it's a Rec. Those still need review and implementation before adding to the Rec 16:06:02 ... But useful to wider industry to track new features and their status 16:06:15 ... I raised a CfC to make that change, there were no objections 16:06:28 ... Atsushi amended the transition request 16:06:35 ... Will that be looked at tomorrow? 16:06:41 Atsushi: I believe so, it's in the queue 16:06:53 ... will be reviewed shortly 16:07:07 Nigel: So it's now for the team to review the transition request and start the AC review 16:07:24 ... The only other part is adding publication dates, which Pierre did. So all good. 16:07:38 Nigel: Anything else on IMSC HRM? 16:07:46 (nothing) 16:07:52 Topic: DAPT 16:08:09 Subtopic: Updates since previous call 16:08:48 Nigel: Done some work on DAPT in the last weeks. 6 PRs merged, one abandoned as no longer needed 16:09:02 ... So we're down to 31 issues, just need to keep the momentum going 16:09:10 ... Links in the agenda to the open issues and PR 16:09:41 We have 4 issues labeled as agenda 16:09:55 s/We/Nigel: We/ 16:10:08 Subtopic: APA WG feedback - name looks like a typo for ADAPT w3c/dapt#167 16:10:17 github: https://github.com/w3c/dapt/issues/167 16:11:05 Nigel: This issue is APA WG feedback. They have an initiative called "ADAPT", where DAPT looks like a typo for that, also they pronounce it similarly 16:11:34 ... It's not a substantive issue, we discussed with the APA WG chairs at TPAC, the sense of that was that they weren't too concerned 16:11:43 ... So propose closing it with no change 16:11:57 ... Any objections to doing nothing with this? 16:12:05 (nothing) 16:13:27 Nigel: OK, so the group agrees to closing with no change 16:13:39 github-bot, end topic 16:14:37 Subtopic: Consider restricting the metadata vocabulary that is permitted in DAPT w3c/dapt#176 16:14:42 github: https://github.com/w3c/dapt/issues/176 16:16:39 Cyril: I think the jist of my comment is, for everything we have in the spec will require work, conformance, implementation, testing 16:16:50 ... So I'm inclined to make the required features as small as possible 16:17:10 ... Agree that title and copyright don't hurt, people will know what to do with them 16:17:22 ... Could settle to have guidance for implementers on what to do with them 16:17:41 ... Don't know if we have other elements that could be present and should be ignored? 16:18:25 Nigel: Item, title, and copyright are the elements we don't have yet 16:18:44 ... ttm:role? Do we use that? 16:19:02 Cyril: We did initially, but I don't think so now 16:19:31 Nigel: Item is possibly the most complicated 16:20:21 Cyril: It's related to extensibility. I think we should say more than we do now. We could say other metadata vocabulary from TTML2 may be present but may be ignored 16:20:37 Nigel: We already say it. In 5.2 we talk about foreign elements 16:20:56 ... There's an editor's note about presentation processors 16:21:14 Cyril: It doesn't say for an element and attributes 16:21:56 Nigel: In 5.2.1, says additional vocabulary may be included. So we've already permitted it but without saying about potential use of it 16:22:22 ... I agree we could rename 5.2 to make it clear it's not just foreign, any unspecified elements or attributes 16:22:32 Cyril: I think we should give guidance on processing 16:23:03 ... I don't want to have people digging into the TTML spec to fully understand what a transformation process or it 16:23:11 s/process or it/processor is/ 16:23:40 Nigel: A few potential actions: One is to describe the purpose of title and copyright and say you can put them in (particularly copyright, not sure about title) 16:24:04 ... Next is to rename section 5.2, so it relates to any unspecified elements or attributes 16:24:24 ... Or reword sentences about transformation process to make it more obvious what's meant 16:25:16 ... Wording for a presentation processor is it may ignore vocabulary it doesn't understand and where DAPT doesn't require support for it 16:26:14 Cyril: We don't say anything about the dapt namespace? An existing processor could see new vocabulary. We want deterministic behaviour for the future 16:26:37 ... We have language about namespaces being extensible or reserved for future standardisation 16:26:55 ... Want to say that implementations should ignore elements or attributes they don't recognise 16:27:45 Nigel: We have in 5.2 about preserving whenever possible 16:27:56 Cyril: Does it cover daptm namespace also? 16:28:15 Nigel: We could change the name of 5.2 to unrecognised elements or attributes 16:28:52 Cyril: I agree, but make it clear it's also about daptm, foreign namespaces, and add a note about it being an extensiblity point 16:29:11 Nigel: Are there are other use cases for extensibility we want to cover? 16:29:30 Cyril: We should think about elements, attributes, attribute values, text content (character data in general) 16:29:54 Nigel: Anyone else with experience with this kind of extensibility to share? 16:30:01 (nothing) 16:30:37 Nigel: We would want existing implementations not to break on documents that include vocabulary not yet define 16:30:49 ... And future implementations still be able to deal with v1 documents 16:31:01 s/define/defined 16:31:06 ... Ideally, but not sure the first of those is always possible 16:31:30 ... Of those potential actions I listed, do we want to do all of them? 16:31:54 Nigel: 1, specify title and copyright 16:32:01 Cyril: Could be a note, doesn't have to be normative 16:32:12 Nigel: So it's not part of the data model? 16:32:30 Cyril: I wouldn't make it so as it's not directly related to processing of the content 16:32:37 Nigel: Makes sense to add a note 16:33:01 ... 2, rename section 5.2 to Unrecognised elements and attributes 16:33:35 ... 3, change the editor's note to say presentation processors may ignore where DAPT doesn't require support for it 16:34:02 ... 4, be explicit about the set of namespaces and that this is an extensibility point 16:34:12 Cyril: I think that's a good outcome for this issue 16:34:25 Nigel: I agree. If we do that, we should resolve #110 at the same time 16:34:47 Cyril: Do we need to say anything about attribute values? 16:35:12 ... As an example, if we want to add a value to an attribute and we don't have a registry 16:35:27 Nigel: Registries aren't allowed to have normative semantics 16:35:55 Cyril: Example, a new script-type value. How to deal with it in an implementation, as it's the value that would be unrecognised 16:36:33 ... IME, a way you'd do it is to pick the closest existing value 16:36:59 ... Don't want to close the extensibility issue now, we need to think about unrecognised attribute values more 16:37:31 Nigel: Anything else to say on this? 16:37:42 Cyril: No 16:38:13 SUMMARY: Clarify specification to address points discussed above. 16:38:40 Subtopic: Following #191 make workflow type a registry, or remove it? w3c/dapt#194 16:38:49 github: https://github.com/w3c/dapt/issues/194 16:41:15 Matt: Want to avoid people down the process that the data was created for a single purpose 16:41:41 Nigel: Could be used as a source of subtitles or dubbling, so forcing into a particular workflow not helpful 16:41:54 Matt: Yes, what you do with it is your choice 16:43:13 Nigel: I think we have consensus to remove workflow-type 16:43:49 Cyril: Discussion about adding restrictions based on workflow-type. If you know it's a dubbing document you can validate there's no audio elements in it. 16:44:15 ... Not saying I disagree with removing workflow types, but would still want an annotation that you can expect something specific from the document 16:44:32 ... If we remove it, would we add another vocabulary, e.g., under 'represents' 16:44:35 Nigel: Yes 16:45:02 Cyril: So the proposal is to replace workflow type with something about what the content represents rather than what it was made for 16:45:20 ... Early on, we discussed ttm:role for this 16:46:30 Nigel: Could have multiple role values, and assign a mapping. If the role is description it's what's in the video image, if role is dialog, or music, or sound... Other things there that could be useful 16:46:51 ... But ttm:role has both dialog and transcription. It's a flexible value set, but not clear which one should use 16:46:53 Present+ Gary 16:47:09 Cyril: Still hesitant. Not sure if we should add a new attribute or use the existing one 16:47:21 ... We discussed using EBU TT-D vocabulary 16:47:49 Nigel: The content type is similar to what we have now 16:48:04 ... So it would reproduce the existing issue we have with workflow type 16:48:18 Cyril: Maybe we should work on a PR and iterate on that? 16:48:52 Nigel: OK, yes 16:49:03 ... Another option is to use ttm:item and a name, and a namespace for the values. But would take a lot of space in the document... 16:50:27 Cyril: Could allow an empty value, or make workflow type optional. Or make it a registry, so anyone can register a new value 16:50:46 Nigel: But that doesn't get rid of the problem with workflow type 16:51:00 ... Let's make a PR, see how it looks 16:51:44 ... Question about whether it should be a registry. Nothing depends on it right now 16:52:04 ... Note about whether things are on screen or not, but no normative language 16:52:20 Cyril: Let's work on the PR 16:52:24 SUMMARY: Prepare a Pull Request removing Workflow Type and adding "represents" or similar. 16:52:53 Subtopic: Consider renaming "Default Language" to e.g. "Language" w3c/dapt#204 16:53:03 github: https://github.com/w3c/dapt/issues/204 16:55:16 Cyril: In the text object, it says language not default language 16:55:33 Nigel: It's optional in the text object, but mandatory in the script object 16:55:49 ... I don't feel strongly about this 16:56:07 Cyril: I'm fine, we can close this. Things have changed since last discussed 16:56:46 Nigel: Works for me. Any other views? 16:57:18 (none) 16:57:20 SUMMARY: Close without change 16:57:26 github-bot, end topic 16:58:12 Subtopic: clarify what spans are possible in a text and how they are handled w3c/dapt#158 16:58:20 github: https://github.com/w3c/dapt/pull/158 16:58:39 Cyril: Should we go back to the original wording? 16:59:39 Nigel: Any recommendations for forms of words would be welcome! 16:59:57 Cyril: I looked at the original issue #17, the recommendations were different to what we landed with 17:00:12 ... It was about spans with specific timing, so a different issue 17:00:35 Nigel: The PR does include spans with timing, does address that issue 17:00:50 ... But it also adds something about text of script events 17:01:02 ... We discussed back in June 17:01:32 Cyril: I think its because we're trying to define what text content means 17:01:52 ... I fear we're going into a spiral of adding more 17:02:21 ... I can try to add spans in metadata or foreign elements are not considered 17:02:43 SUMMARY: @cconcolato to attempt a further edit 17:02:48 Topic: Meeting close 17:03:22 Nigel: Thank you all for participating. We meet in 2 weeks time, on 29 February 17:03:48 (adjourned) 17:04:22 rrsagent, make minutes 17:04:23 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/02/15-tt-minutes.html nigel 17:11:21 Chair: Nigel, Gary 17:12:05 s/Topic: Agenda/Subtopic: Agenda 17:12:25 s/then DAPT PRs/then DAPT issues and PRs 17:14:10 s/6 PRs merged/7 issues closed, 6 PRs merged 17:14:54 s/github-bot, end topic//g 17:18:32 s/Could be used as a source of subtitles or dubbling/Original transcripts could be used as a source of subtitles or dubbing 17:18:55 s/workflow-type/daptm:workflowType 17:19:26 s/workflow-type/daptm:workflowType 17:19:36 s/daptm:workflowType/Workflow Type 17:20:44 i/Nigel: The content type is similar/-> https://www.ebu.ch/metadata/cs/EBU-TTContentTypeCS.xml EBU-TT Content Type Classification Scheme 17:21:46 rrsagent, make minutes 17:22:17 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/02/15-tt-minutes.html nigel 17:25:07 scribeOptions: -final -noEmbedDiagnostics 17:25:11 zakim, end meeting 17:25:11 As of this point the attendees have been Nigel, Matt, Chris, Atsushi, Chris_Needham, Pierre, Cyril, Gary 17:25:13 RRSAgent, please draft minutes v2 17:25:14 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/02/15-tt-minutes.html Zakim 17:25:20 I am happy to have been of service, nigel; please remember to excuse RRSAgent. Goodbye 17:25:21 Zakim has left #tt 17:25:37 rrsagent, excuse us 17:25:37 I see no action items