14:59:11 RRSAgent has joined #tt 14:59:11 logging to https://www.w3.org/2022/06/09-tt-irc 14:59:18 Zakim has joined #tt 15:00:33 atai has joined #tt 15:00:41 zakim, start meeting 15:00:41 RRSAgent, make logs Public 15:00:42 Meeting: Timed Text Working Group Teleconference 15:00:55 Agenda: https://github.com/w3c/ttwg/issues/219 15:01:05 Previous meeting: https://www.w3.org/2022/05/12-tt-minutes.html 15:01:10 scribe: nigel 15:01:34 Present: Andreas, Atsushi, Gary, Nigel, Pierre 15:01:38 Chair: Gary, Nigel 15:02:27 Present+ Cyril 15:03:36 Topic: This meeting 15:04:32 Nigel: Today we have DAPT, Rechartering, and I kept the low latency and controls issue on the agenda, 15:04:37 .. in case there is anything to discuss there. 15:04:44 .. Any other business? 15:04:57 Gary: TPAC planning? 15:05:09 Nigel: Yes, we should do that, since there's been some communication since I put the agenda out. 15:05:20 .. Any more? 15:05:31 Nothing more 15:05:38 Topic: DAPT 15:05:48 Nigel: Thanks Cyril for opening a PR with the first draft. 15:06:02 .. Before we get there, just a reminder that we published the DAPT-REQs draft WG Note 15:06:11 .. and I also wrote a blog post about it. 15:06:28 -> https://www.w3.org/TR/dapt-reqs/ DAPT REQs WG Note 15:06:39 -> https://www.w3.org/blog/2022/05/towards-a-dubbing-and-audio-description-exchange-format/ Blog post 15:06:58 .. There has been some response to those that I haven't got around to dealing with yet. 15:07:25 .. Cyril, in the last hour I approved the pull request so we can get started. 15:07:33 Cyril: Thank you, sorry I couldn't do it before your break! 15:07:37 Nigel: That's okay! 15:07:48 Cyril: We should treat it as a starting point. I'm happy to receive feedback. 15:08:29 .. It doesn't really have AD in it yet, I was counting on you to add that bit Nigel. 15:08:32 Nigel: OK! 15:08:38 Cyril: I would encourage two types of review. 15:08:49 .. First the data model, terminology, fit against the requirements 15:08:56 .. (or fix the requirements if they're incomplete) 15:09:04 .. And then a second pass to agree the mapping to the TTML syntax. 15:09:17 .. Until the model is frozen it may not be that useful to talk about the syntax. 15:09:20 .. That's my suggestion. 15:10:57 Nigel: I agree about the data model and terminology - in the way of these things, 15:11:11 .. the spec defines a sort of jargon, and it may be non-intuitive to some readers in the web context. 15:11:21 .. For example "event" might suggest javascript to some readers. 15:11:47 Cyril: Anything else on this? 15:12:08 Nigel: Suggest merging the pull request so we can publish it on GitHub Pages. 15:12:15 Cyril: I'll do that later today. 15:12:35 Nigel: I can't remember if we sorted publication on gh-pages or not, but I can do that if need be. 15:12:47 .. Any more on this from anyone? 15:12:55 Nothing more 15:13:04 Topic: Rechartering status update 15:13:21 Nigel: We had a number of pull requests open for ages on the draft charter, with approvals. 15:13:26 .. Yesterday I just merged them. 15:14:23 .. The one remaining is: 15:14:45 -> https://github.com/w3c/charter-timed-text/pull/81 Reintroduce the 'at least two independent implementations' SHOULD from the previous version of the charter. w3c/charter-timed-text#81 15:15:35 Nigel: I've forgotten some of the details but I think Apple said they'd think about other alternative 15:15:38 .. proposals. 15:15:42 Gary: Yes they said they would. 15:16:46 Nigel: Now we've had chance to consider this the question to ask ourselves is if we can live with Apple's 15:19:59 .. proposal or if it is so against our changes that we can't accept it. 15:20:25 Cyril: At least make the terms consistent in advancing to PR or advancing beyond CR. 15:20:33 Nigel: They're the same thing, just described differently. 15:20:48 Cyril: If we don't meet this SHOULD then we would have to justify it? 15:20:50 Nigel: Yes 15:20:58 Gary: I think we would likely need to do it anyway. 15:21:10 .. Apple's position is they would prefer that SHOULD be a MUST. 15:21:21 Pierre: I think that leaving that second paragraph in just postpones the discussion. 15:21:35 .. The root of what's happening here is that folks are trying to impose in Charters things that 15:21:39 .. are not imposed in the Process. 15:21:48 .. We can jump around this but we're delaying the discussion. 15:22:01 Gary: That is what is happening because it's easier to do it that way, for better or worse. 15:22:12 Pierre: It's usually easier to deal with these things up-front. 15:22:22 .. Vivid memories of EME where this didn't help. 15:22:30 .. If we don't do it now we'll have it again very soon. 15:22:41 Gary: We did ask Apple to restart the Process level discussions. 15:23:01 Pierre: For the record, I've been trying to have discussions with Apple about this and they have not been responsive. 15:24:13 Nigel: As Gary says, the intent is to roll it into Charters first, because they consider it to be 15:24:26 .. better to have experience in Charters first before changing the Process. 15:25:36 Pierre: For the HRM I don't think we are likely to see a second implementation. 15:25:52 Nigel: I think they would argue that in that case it ought not to be a web standard. 15:25:58 Pierre: I don't understand the goal. 15:26:14 Gary: Their goal is to demonstrate interop so that two independent readers of the spec generate the same 15:26:21 .. outcome from their implementations. 15:26:58 Pierre: I would equally claim, as suggested by Nigel a while back, that have two folks, one independently 15:27:11 .. creating content and another creating an implementation, agree on the expected result, then 15:27:16 .. that is an equally legitimate test. 15:27:28 Cyril: You could claim that there's an implementation behind the content creation so you would claim 15:27:33 .. there are two implementations. 15:27:50 Pierre: Exactly. I think one creates content and one processes it is a fine test. 15:28:11 .. I am concerned that using this to gauge industry interest would be a terrible tool. 15:28:16 Gary: I don't think it's that. 15:28:33 .. They consider that just creating content isn't good enough. 15:28:44 Pierre: I see no factual basis for why this is not a good way to test the interpretation of a spec. 15:28:59 Gary: One potential issue is that somebody could be writing it against the HRM as opposed to against the spec. 15:29:12 .. They could be testing their content against the implementation. 15:29:24 Pierre: Sure, and someone could fork an implementation, tweak it, and call it theirs! 15:31:33 Nigel: This comes down to whether or not the Chairs could tell a story to exit CR to the Director 15:31:40 .. based on this Charter and succeed. 15:32:01 .. By the way, another option is to keep their PR wording and modify our additional wording to clarify the intent. 15:32:19 .. For example it may be that we've slipped into TTWG jargon about implementation types and the AC 15:32:27 .. does not generally share the same understanding of our terminology. 15:32:48 Gary: Yes, it could be that changing "content" to "content creating implementation" would help. 15:33:19 .. The other thing is how many times can we extend the Charter before they say No?! 15:33:39 Pierre: The other option is to stay at CR forever. I don't think that's a good solution. 15:33:44 Gary: Agree that's not a good solution. 15:33:59 Nigel: Also agree, but note that Apple's view was that due to other changes e.g. to patent policy, 15:34:12 .. being at CR permanently is a lot safer than it used to be. 15:34:42 .. I quite strongly feel that staying at CR forever is a really bad message to send, particularly if it becomes 15:34:48 .. a widespread practice across W3C. 15:35:24 Cyril: Apologies, have to leave the call. 15:36:16 Nigel: Practical choices: 15:36:21 .. 1. Reject the PR 15:36:27 .. 2. Ask Apple for other alternatives 15:36:33 .. 3. Accept the PR 15:37:01 Gary: We can ask Apple for alternatives regardless. 15:37:11 Nigel: If we accept the PR they won't generate alternatives. 15:37:24 Atsushi: For option 1, our extension of the current charter is until the end of June. 15:37:51 .. Accepting 1 will result in FO Council, and I assume that we proceed with the current 15:38:05 .. checklist. I can't believe that FO will be the result to meet with our desire. 15:38:16 .. For option 3 it is simpler, we can just recharter as soon as possible. 15:38:38 Gary: My thought is we ask Apple for alternatives and then before the Charter expires, 15:38:52 .. we could then potentially accept the PR and recharter, and push Apple to restart the Process discussions. 15:40:43 Nigel: Listening to the discussion I think my conclusion is we do want to assess other alternatives, 15:40:55 .. and the lack of strong statements in favour or against means we are all sitting on the fence. 15:41:12 Atsushi: We should push Process CG and Apple to consider these implementation related items within 15:41:14 .. the Process. 15:41:54 Nigel: I have raised issues before and it is a matter of reinvigorating discussion on those issues. 15:42:14 Atsushi: I should rephrase: I would like Chairs to push issues into Process CG as soon as possible. 15:42:17 .. Are they open already? 15:42:21 Gary: There are several 15:42:23 Nigel: Yes we do 15:42:28 Atsushi: Ah, sorry for that. 15:43:05 github: https://github.com/w3c/charter-timed-text/pull/81 15:43:27 SUMMARY: Group discussed on call today. Ambivalent towards PR, would like Apple to generate other alternative suggestions. 15:43:46 Topic: TPAC Planning 15:44:04 Nigel: Before he left the call Cyril mentioned that he is still willing to attend TPAC in person if we go ahead. 15:44:27 Gary: We requested time for Thursday and Friday but we don't have any set plans or times currently. 15:44:39 .. I completed the Chair's WBS survey 15:44:44 Nigel: Thank you for that. 15:45:15 Gary: We have a draft schedule that we have until the 14th to adjust. 15:45:19 .. (Tuesday) 15:48:13 Nigel: I'm tempted to suggest that we meet on the two mornings of Thursday and Friday 15:48:22 Gary: Good for Andreas joining remotely. 15:48:46 .. Also Chris Needham asked if we want to meet jointly on Thursday morning. 15:49:12 Andreas: Thanks Gary, I will be unlikely to be there in person, so daytime or early evening Europe time would be best for me to join remotely. 15:49:57 Nigel: Gary, should you and I come up with some time proposals offline to give us reasonable 15:50:04 .. meeting duration to cover our agenda? 15:50:07 Gary: Yes, sounds good. 15:50:50 Nigel: Should we say yes for a joint meeting with MEIG? 15:51:01 .. I would like to say yes because I think it might be a good place to begin discussing the challenges 15:51:06 .. with the video HTML element. 15:51:15 Gary: Yes, would we want the Media WG there too? 15:51:20 Nigel: Yes possibly. 15:51:34 .. I'll discuss that with Chris. We may also have other agenda items of course. 15:51:42 Nigel: Anything else for TPAC? 15:51:52 Nothing for now 15:53:05 Topic: Meeting Close 15:53:16 Nigel: [checks that there's nothing to discuss on the remaining agenda items] 15:53:33 .. Thanks everyone, let's adjourn a few minutes early today. [adjourns meeting] 15:53:36 rrsagent, make minutes 15:53:36 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2022/06/09-tt-minutes.html nigel 16:04:25 nigel has joined #tt 16:07:25 nigel has joined #tt 16:09:38 scribeOptions: -final -noEmbedDiagnostics 16:09:41 zakim, end meeting 16:09:42 As of this point the attendees have been Andreas, Atsushi, Gary, Nigel, Pierre, Cyril 16:09:42 RRSAgent, please draft minutes v2 16:09:42 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2022/06/09-tt-minutes.html Zakim 16:09:47 I am happy to have been of service, nigel; please remember to excuse RRSAgent. Goodbye 16:09:51 Zakim has left #tt 16:21:08 nigel has joined #tt 16:22:32 nigel has joined #tt 16:23:14 rrsagent, excuse us 16:23:14 I see no action items