16:01:08 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #tt
16:01:13 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2024/03/14-tt-irc
16:01:13 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
16:01:14 <Zakim> Meeting: Timed Text Working Group Teleconference
16:01:37 <nigel> Agenda: https://github.com/w3c/ttwg/issues/276
16:01:47 <nigel> Previous meeting: https://www.w3.org/2024/02/29-tt-minutes.html
16:02:14 <nigel> scribe: nigel
16:02:22 <nigel> Present: Nigel, Gary, Andreas
16:02:25 <nigel> Chair: Gary, Nigel
16:02:36 <nigel> Regrets: Chris, Cyril
16:03:05 <nigel> Present: Atsushi
16:03:13 <nigel> Present+ Nigel, Gary, Andreas
16:03:35 <nigel> Topic: This meeting
16:03:48 <nigel> Nigel: On the agenda today, we have the IMSC-HRM AC review,
16:03:55 <nigel> .. and some DAPT issues and pull requests
16:04:02 <atai> atai has joined #tt
16:04:09 <nigel> .. Is there any other business, or points to make sure we cover?
16:04:19 <nigel> Andreas: Nothing from me
16:04:25 <nigel> group: nothing else
16:04:41 <nigel> Nigel: I just wanted to apologise again for the shifting meeting time for today.
16:04:51 <nigel> .. Just for advanced information,
16:05:01 <nigel> .. I think we should stick to this time for our call in 2 weeks,
16:05:20 <nigel> .. and then move to 1 hour earlier UTC, to revert to the normal local time for most people,
16:05:33 <nigel> .. unfortunately excluding Atsushi, but an hour earlier might be a good thing in Japan?
16:05:36 <nigel> Present+ Pierre
16:05:50 <nigel> Atsushi: That works for me.
16:06:09 <nigel> .. Thank you for the consideration. The i18n call immediately before this sticks to UK time,
16:06:20 <nigel> .. so that allows me to attend both.
16:06:39 <nigel> Nigel: I think that's a decision. Any last words on this?
16:06:42 <nigel> Atsushi: Thanks for that.
16:06:56 <nigel> Topic: IMSC-HRM AC Review status
16:07:20 <nigel> Gary: Philippe just closed the transition request just now, so I guess it's published.
16:07:39 <gkatsev> https://www.w3.org/TR/2024/PR-imsc-hrm-20240229/
16:08:26 <nigel> IMSC-HRM AC Review poll results (access restricted) ->https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/33280/202402-PR-IMSC-HRM/results
16:08:49 <nigel> Nigel: The AC review is open for another two weeks.
16:09:21 <nigel> Nigel: That transition request was for transition to PR, which happened 2 weeks ago, I think the request
16:09:29 <nigel> .. issue just got closed as an admin task.
16:10:01 <nigel> .. [summarises poll results for those on the call]
16:11:45 <nigel> .. It would be helpful to have as many responses as possible,
16:12:06 <nigel> .. particularly not abstentions, so if you know any AC reps you can reach out to
16:12:14 <nigel> .. and encourage a response, that would be very helpful.
16:12:30 <nigel> Atsushi: If we cannot collect support from participating organisations we may have a hard
16:12:46 <nigel> .. situation for transitioning to Rec so please get your own organisation to review positively.
16:12:59 <nigel> Nigel: I assume invited experts cannot vote?
16:13:10 <nigel> Atsushi: Yes, only member organisations.
16:13:21 <nigel> Present+ Matt
16:13:29 <nigel> .. Thank you for the consideration, this is quite important.
16:14:38 <nigel> Proposed changes from BBC -> https://github.com/w3c/imsc-hrm/issues/79
16:17:28 <nigel> Nigel: I looked at these and I think they're completely editorial and all are improvements.
16:17:37 <nigel> Pierre: Sounds good, thanks to Chris for his review.
16:17:54 <nigel> Nigel: There's no problem making edits like this between PR and Rec?
16:19:13 <nigel> Atsushi: I need to check.
16:19:24 <nigel> Nigel: I think the answer is that it's okay but happy for you to check.
16:19:44 <nigel> Atsushi: From Proposed Rec to Rec, substantial changes are prohibited.
16:19:54 <nigel> .. The easiest way is to raise comments via AC review.
16:19:59 <nigel> Nigel: That is what Chris has done.
16:20:06 <nigel> Atsushi: Then it's simple, we just need to fix.
16:20:19 <nigel> .. If substantive issues are raised by AC review we need to go back through the process, but
16:20:26 <nigel> .. it is common to make changes after AC Review.
16:20:40 <nigel> Nigel: I guess that's with you as Editor Pierre.
16:20:50 <nigel> Pierre: What's the right timing to generate a PR?
16:20:56 <nigel> Nigel: I think you can do it whenever you like.
16:21:14 <nigel> Atsushi: There's no formal timing for revising Proposed Rec. Everything should be Editor's Draft,
16:21:24 <nigel> .. so everything should be fine, subject to our CfC period.
16:21:31 <nigel> Pierre: Okay, I will address them ASAP
16:21:34 <nigel> Atsushi: Thank you for that.
16:21:50 <nigel> .. Please note that we may need to get one extra week to get back to reviewers after AC review,
16:22:07 <nigel> .. on any changes. A bit like with a Charter we need to check with reviewers that they're happy with the changes.
16:22:33 <nigel> Nigel: I imagine that Chris would directly review the Pull Request.
16:22:43 <nigel> Atsushi: It's a formal process - we need to go back to all the reviewers.
16:23:21 <nigel> Nigel: Anything more on IMSC-HRM?
16:23:39 <nigel> Topic: DAPT
16:24:02 <nigel> Nigel: Since the last meeting we closed one issue and merged one pull request.
16:24:24 <nigel> .. More importantly, Cyril and I spent quite a bit of time thinking through the open issues, particularly
16:24:47 <nigel> .. the one we discussed last call about backwards/forwards compatibility and how to handle
16:25:08 <nigel> .. conformant DAPT documents that don't map directly to the DAPT Data Model as it stands.
16:25:26 <nigel> 3 agenda items -> https://github.com/w3c/dapt/labels/agenda
16:25:39 <nigel> s/agenda/DAPT agenda
16:26:18 <nigel> Subtopic:  Investigate Data Model and TTML Syntax mapping w3c/dapt#214
16:26:27 <nigel> github: https://github.com/w3c/dapt/issues/214
16:27:38 <nigel> Nigel: The issue is that it is possible to construct TTML documents that are conformant DAPT documents
16:27:48 <nigel> .. but which contain things that do not map directly to the DAPT data model.
16:27:54 <nigel> .. Things that we considered were:
16:28:07 <nigel> .. Adding more constraints to the DAPT documents to prevent that;
16:29:26 <nigel> .. Adding generic grouping of Script Events to match nested divs
16:31:20 <nigel> .. Adding statements into the DAPT Data Model -> TTML representation saying how to reverse it
16:31:35 <nigel> .. Adding a new section explaining TTML -> DAPT Data Model mapping (we decided to do that)
16:32:16 <nigel> .. Add no extra constraints or features (we decided it is better not to add any, and to have explanations instead)
16:33:32 <nigel> .. I am drafting a pull request to add a possibly informative new section explaining
16:33:52 <nigel> .. suggested rules for mapping TTML to DAPT, and also updating the Foreign Vocabulary section to make it
16:34:10 <nigel> .. more generally apply to any unrecognised vocabulary even if it's in the TTML or DAPT namespaces.
16:34:17 <atai> q+
16:34:30 <nigel> .. Any thoughts about this?
16:34:31 <nigel> ack at
16:34:40 <nigel> Andreas: You say the new section will be informative?
16:34:46 <nigel> Nigel: That's what I'm thinking at the moment.
16:35:00 <nigel> Andreas: What's the normative expected behaviour of a processor. Is it implementation dependent?
16:35:15 <nigel> Nigel: It's what's defined by the TTML features and extensions
16:35:29 <nigel> Andreas: Er, ok. Nested divs for example, are not forbidden?
16:35:31 <nigel> Nigel: That's right
16:35:45 <nigel> Andreas: That would be part of the expected behaviour to deal with that?
16:35:46 <nigel> Nigel: Yes
16:36:04 <nigel> Andreas: You say the mapping rules will be informative, but what will the normative expected behaviour.
16:36:28 <nigel> Nigel: It's what TTML says. There's no normative requirement to map into the DAPT data model.
16:37:26 <nigel> .. The fact that a DAPT document was generated from the data model is interesting maybe but
16:37:50 <nigel> .. doesn't define the processing behaviour.
16:39:03 <nigel> Andreas: So you cannot guarantee that two DAPT data model-based implementations handle a generic TTML
16:39:06 <nigel> .. document the same way?
16:39:24 <nigel> .. There's no normative deterministic parsing into the data model?
16:39:35 <nigel> Nigel: That's right, but parsing into the data model isn't a requirement.
16:41:56 <nigel> .. There is already text around handling unknown stuff in §5.2, which is normative, and quite broad,
16:42:15 <nigel> .. but essentially the processing semantics are defined by TTML, because DAPT is defining a profile of TTML.
16:42:33 <nigel> .. Most of the extension features are constraining syntax, I don't think there are any that define
16:42:40 <nigel> .. processing behaviours that wouldn't apply more generally.
16:43:27 <nigel> .. In particular, none of the extension features is based on anything in the DAPT data model;
16:43:42 <nigel> .. they are all constraining the TTML representation directly.
16:44:48 <nigel> .. I think adding this guidance feels helpful, but the question is if it actually needs to be any more normative than guidance.
16:45:08 <nigel> .. I suspect you're thinking about it and need to see the pull request.
16:45:19 <nigel> Andreas: Yes, it would be good to see it written down and then play it through.
16:45:44 <nigel> Nigel: Sure, I just wanted to inform you where we got to and the direction of travel.
16:45:58 <nigel> .. Happy to have any comments either on the issue or the pull request when opened.
16:46:10 <nigel> SUMMARY: @nigelmegitt to continue drafting a pull request
16:47:53 <nigel> Topic:  Clarify language application and inheritance model w3c/dapt#192
16:48:00 <nigel> github: https://github.com/w3c/dapt/issues/192
16:48:08 <atai> q+
16:48:57 <nigel> Andreas: We discussed this last time and I think the conclusion was that we should add
16:49:12 <nigel> .. lang to Script Event.
16:49:18 <nigel> Nigel: That's easy, we can do that.
16:49:29 <nigel> .. Thank you for the reminder!
16:50:12 <nigel> SUMMARY: Add Language to Script Event as an optional property
16:50:26 <nigel> Andreas: My recollection is we think that makes sense, Cyril suggested it, nobody objected.
16:50:39 <nigel> .. My only question is what happens if xml:lang is on the <body> element?
16:51:45 <nigel> Nigel: We discussed in relation to w3c/dapt#214 about computing values and then applying them where appropriate.
16:52:03 <nigel> Pierre: It's a two step process - first compute the value of xml:lang on every element, then when you map
16:52:20 <nigel> .. those elements to your model, you get the values of xml:lang on the objects where you care about it.
16:52:35 <nigel> .. Would you like me to add a note to the ticket?
16:52:41 <nigel> Nigel: Yes please, on 214.
16:52:45 <nigel> Pierre: OK
16:52:57 <nigel> Nigel: Thank you, that would be really helpful.
16:53:21 <nigel> Pierre: It works in both directions. If you map the model to XML you can just specify it on elements where it applies,
16:53:27 <nigel> .. because that will always override the inheritance.
16:53:42 <nigel> .. You can make another pass and simplify the serialisation using inheritance, but that's optional.
16:53:47 <nigel> Nigel: [nods]
16:54:05 <nigel> Pierre: I suffered through that on TTML validation parsing. There's no way to finesse it. There are always corner cases.
16:54:28 <nigel> .. One fun one in TTML - you have to do xml:lang inheritance before ISD processing, because you end up
16:54:47 <nigel> .. moving body under region as part of the ISD generation algorithm so if you haven't computed it already
16:54:53 <nigel> .. then you might end up with the wrong value.
16:55:00 <nigel> Nigel: That's a really good point.
16:55:41 <nigel> .. There's no need for regions in DAPT normally, but it's a gotcha that someone might use them for some reason
16:55:59 <nigel> .. and might put an xml:lang on them, who knows why, and then it needs to work how you just described it Pierre.
16:57:10 <nigel> Topic: Meeting close
16:57:52 <nigel> Nigel: Thanks everyone, as discussed at the top of the call, we will meet next in 2 weeks
16:58:12 <nigel> .. at the 1600 UTC time. The meeting after that will be adjusted to 1500 UTC to track DST in Europe, which
16:58:21 <nigel> .. also works for Atsushi.
16:58:51 <nigel> Gary: It helps me too.
16:59:19 <nigel> Atsushi: I am quite sorry but could send regrets for next time - that day I will be travelling, but I will try.
16:59:35 <nigel> Gary: Don't try too hard if it's a travel day.
16:59:39 <nigel> Nigel: +1
17:00:06 <nigel> Nigel: Thanks again everyone. [adjourns meeting]
17:00:55 <nigel> rrsagent, make minutes
17:00:57 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/03/14-tt-minutes.html nigel
17:05:06 <nigel> s/need to get one extra week/need to take one extra week
17:06:24 <nigel> s/Adding generic grouping of Script Events/Adding to the data model a generic grouping of Script Events
17:07:19 <nigel> s/but what will the normative expected behaviour./but what will the normative expected behaviour be?
17:09:16 <nigel> rrsagent, make minutes
17:09:18 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/03/14-tt-minutes.html nigel
17:20:15 <nigel> scribeOptions: -final -noEmbedDiagnostics
17:20:18 <nigel> zakim, end meeting
17:20:18 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been Atsushi, Nigel, Gary, Andreas, Pierre, Matt
17:20:20 <Zakim> RRSAgent, please draft minutes v2
17:20:22 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/03/14-tt-minutes.html Zakim
17:20:28 <Zakim> I am happy to have been of service, nigel; please remember to excuse RRSAgent.  Goodbye
17:20:28 <Zakim> Zakim has left #tt
17:20:59 <nigel> rrsagent, excuse us
17:20:59 <RRSAgent> I see no action items