IRC log of tt on 2024-02-15

Timestamps are in UTC.

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