Meeting minutes
This meeting
Nigel: Today we have [iterates through agenda] and we're quite light on people so let's see what we can do.
… Any other business to raise for the meeting?
group: [no other business]
IMSC 1.2 HR
Nigel: Let's look at the issue:
github: https://github.com/w3c/ttwg/issues/76
Nigel: I checked the "Privacy" box because I believe Jeffrey Yaskin's response covered IMSC 1.2 as well as TTML2
… I filed an issue for TAG earlier in the week.
… It was slightly unsatisfying because the issue template asked for good things that I don't think we have.
… In particular I chose the best thing I could find for the explainer, but I don't know if we have anything better.
Pierre: I think that thread has all the information.
… There's another thread I think, the actual issue on imsc-vnext-reqs.
Nigel: I looked at that and decided it was not as useful.
Pierre: Alright, thanks.
Nigel: Then I think we have not updated the security and privacy self review for IMSC 1.2.
Pierre: I remember spending a lot of time on this, maybe for IMSC 1.1
Nigel: The thing here is that the changes we have made do potentially impact security.
Pierre: Look at w3c/imsc#503
Nigel: Ah, great, thank you!
Pierre: We did a lot of work, we just don't remember.
Nigel: Right!
… I've added that in to the TAG request
… I also did request an expedited review since the delta is small.
<plh> https://www.w3.org/wiki/DocumentReview#Horizontal_Groups
Nigel: The last box in this HR review is for security. We have not sent this I think.
Philippe: You have to send it to public-web-security.
Pierre: Let's make sure we have not done this already.
Nigel: If I'd done it I should have added it to this issue.
Philippe: [searches the archive] I don't have anything for IMSC since 1.1.
Nigel: OK I need to send something.
Philippe: You copy/paste what you have to that list.
Cyril: Given that IMSC is a profile of TTML and TTML went through that step do we need to do anything?
Philippe: That's a good point.
… It doesn't hurt to send an email. Do you need to hold on it to get an answer?
… My suggestion would be no.
Gary: Also back in October Nigel sent a security review request for TTML2 2nd Ed.
Philippe: A simple email saying we plan to move this forward and given it is a profile we don't believe it
… needs a security review, so this is for information.
Nigel: Okay I can certainly do that.
<plh> https://w3c.github.io/horizontal-issue-tracker/?repo=w3c/i18n-activity
Nigel: This is good, the number of upstream dependencies has reduced.
Philippe: I see TTML2 related issues on i18n.
Nigel: All those are in hand, and labelled to be dealt with in a future edition of TTML2.
Philippe: Then I agree likely we won't get new issues for IMSC 1.2.
Pierre: We could pick a target date for IMSC 1.2 CR today and work towards that.
… Given we don't know of outstanding issues and we think the risk is low maybe we should just do that.
… Then we can let HR groups know.
… What about 3 weeks?
Nigel: Our Charter says to allow 3 months for HR.
<plh> "The Working Group is advised to seek a review at least 3 months before first entering CR and is encouraged to proactively notify the horizontal review groups when major changes occur in a specification following a review."
Pierre: I don't think 3 months is warranted for this size of change.
… I propose saying 3 weeks and let TAG know.
… Be apologetic, ask them to let us know if they want us to hold off.
Philippe: I would give 4 weeks because 28 days is mentioned in the Process quite often.
Pierre: OK that's fine with me, let's do that.
Philippe: NB the Charter provides "advice" not a requirement.
Pierre: I guess in this case it is just to avoid going to CR and then the TAG coming back with a major issue that
… requires a 2nd CR. It makes sense to give them a couple of weeks for a quick review to see if they have a bad reaction.
Nigel: OK sure I will add a message to Tess on the ticket.
Philippe: You should give them the option to ask for more time.
Nigel: Yes.
Nigel: OK if we are to publish CR in 4 weeks then we will need a resolution to publish, and time to prep for the
… publication.
… Are there any open issues we plan to resolve in IMSC 1.2?
… [looks] Seems like no.
… We need to make sure the IMSC 1.1 errata are factored in.
Pierre: We were pretty methodical in doing that I believe.
Nigel: OK given the number of people on the call I think it is fairer to issue a CfC for publication.
Pierre: I think so yes.
Nigel: But just as a checkpoint, does anyone on this call have any objections to publishing in 4 weeks?
group: [no objections]
Pierre: Nigel, let me know if you need any input on the email to the TAG, I will be happy to help.
Nigel: OK, thank you for the offer.
… I think that's it for this topic.
SUMMARY: @nigelmegitt to send messages to Security and TAG and the other HR recipients advising of the plan to publish in 4 weeks, and to issue CfC for publication.
TTML2 2nd Edition CR Publication
Nigel: The specific subtopic here was tests; I'm not aware of any progress. Anyone?
Cyril: Nothing to report from me. I noticed there are plenty of audio related features.
Nigel: OK I should really look at that.
Cyril: Also anyone else interested in those features.
Nigel: OK we have nothing more to discuss on this I think.
Meeting close
Nigel: Thanks everyone. We've done what we can today. See you next week. [adjourns meeting]