15:58:03 RRSAgent has joined #tt 15:58:08 logging to https://www.w3.org/2024/11/21-tt-irc 15:58:08 RRSAgent, make logs Public 15:58:09 Meeting: Timed Text Working Group Teleconference 16:05:53 scribe: nigel 16:05:53 cpn has joined #tt 16:05:57 Chair: Nigel, Gary 16:06:02 Regrets: Pierre 16:06:07 present+ Chris 16:06:10 scribe+ 16:06:44 Present: Gary, Chris. Nigel, Andreas, Matt, Cyril, Nigel 16:07:07 Topic: This meeting 16:07:51 Nigel: DAPT, minor TTML2 update, Charter 2025, anything else? 16:07:54 atai has joined #tt 16:08:12 Chris: AOB around the WebVideo Map Tracks (WebVMT) 16:08:53 Topic: DAPT 16:09:05 present+ Atsushi 16:09:06 Subtopic: Implementation Report 16:09:27 Nigel: I have created a wiki page 16:09:32 -> https://www.w3.org/wiki/TimedText/DAPT_Implementation_Report DAPT Implementation Report 16:10:13 Nigel: It's a starting point. I've copied in the draft CR exit criteria and created a template based on what we did before 16:12:28 ... It lists the extension features from DAPT, we can assess implementations based on tests for each feature 16:12:56 Cyril: This is looking good. How do we test features that are prohibited? 16:13:51 ... I think #source-data as example 16:14:10 Nigel: We can create a document that does what you're not allowed to do, and check a validation implementation fails on it 16:14:26 ... and a document that does it the right way, check it passes validation. Is that enough? 16:15:32 ... The alternative is to rework the extensions so they're expressed as prohibitions. Equally weird, but testable 16:16:20 Cyril: Either way, not every type of processor can recognise that, it has to be a validation processor. So to exit CR we need a validation processor, not just an authoring tool and a presentation processor 16:16:36 ... What kinds of processors do we need to include in the implementation report? 16:17:10 Nigel: (Reads the requirements in the Charter) 16:17:50 ... You could have a content producing implementation that does source-data the right way, but it's a pretty weak test. Show the content it generates is valid, without using a validation processor itself, use manual inspection 16:17:53 ... Any suggestions? 16:18:14 Cyril: A validation tool based on the XML schema, could be the easiest way to validate this feature 16:18:59 ... I'd like to understand which features we think will be difficult to pass, because we'll have two implementations, specifically for features marked at-risk, e.g., variants around audio source 16:20:04 Nigel: The at-risk features are all things that are part of TTML2 already. With the way the CR exit criteria are drafted, and the list of features in the test list, none of the at-risk features are listed 16:21:17 ... I'm not sure we have specific sub-features or extensions. Script Event Grouping is an example. 16:22:08 ... We might find nobody wants to implement that, so we'd have to remove support for it, would be a significant editorial change 16:22:28 Cyril: I think it's good enough for now 16:23:03 Nigel: The BBC and Netflix implementations are just listed as examples 16:23:49 Cyril: It would be good to encourage people to list their implementations, even partial ones 16:24:10 Nigel: Yes, e.g, the EBU EuroVox 16:24:49 ... The moment to do that is when we publish CR, announce and ask for implementation details 16:25:16 ... We need the report to exit CR, not enter CR 16:26:44 q? 16:26:46 Nigel: Anything else on this topic? 16:26:51 (nothing) 16:27:05 Subtopic: Pull requests 16:27:49 Nigel: There are three PRs. Only one is required for PR, the work on feature dispositions 16:28:21 ... Thank you Andreas for your positive review. Does anyone want more time for review before I merge? 16:28:29 Cyril: I don't need more time 16:28:42 Andreas: It does need some time to look at, there's a couple of features 16:29:13 Nigel: Andreas and I have looked carefully at it. I'm comfortable merging it, we have no requested changes, and enough time has passed 16:29:18 Cyril: I'm fine with merging it 16:30:10 Nigel: There's an editorial PR to add an XSD, and there's another to prepare for CRS that needs rebasing 16:30:24 s/for PR/for CR/ 16:31:02 Subtopic: CFC Results and CR next steps 16:31:33 Nigel: Any objection to declaring that we have consensus? 16:31:47 Cyril: I support 16:31:52 Andreas: Also fine with me 16:32:30 RESOLUTION: Request transition to CR based on https://github.com/w3c/dapt/pull/269 (after rebasing) 16:33:05 Nigel: Atsushi, you raised this for horizontal review 16:33:24 Atsushi: I'm asking for security review. I hope to hear back shortly 16:34:30 cpn: It's not a recharter, it's a new group. I'd concur not to block on it. 16:35:20 Atsushi: Usually the review is required, but we should be fine for asking transition 16:35:42 Nigel: Is there anything else you need from the WG to request transition? 16:36:03 Atsushi: No, I'm just waiting to hear back from horizontal reviews. 16:36:27 ... There's no strict procedure on requesting review and CR transition 16:37:36 Nigel: I might need to adjust the expected PR date in the CRS. Any suggestions for a date to use? 16:38:01 Atsushi: I personally want to finish during December, before end of year 16:38:25 Nigel: I want to suggest changing it to 31 Jan 16:38:41 ... I'll do that 16:39:45 Nigel: There's a pull request to add an XSD to the repo, which I created with help from Ben Poor from EuroVox 16:40:06 ... It tries to validate some of the prohibitions and constraints, in DAPT not in TTML 16:40:20 ... It pulls in the EBU TT-D metadata XSD via a git submodule 16:40:50 ... It's there for review and try out to see if it works 16:41:25 ... The IMSC XSD just references from TTML2 and SMPTE-TT and others. The idea is you set up the validation environment to know where those XSDs are 16:41:35 ... Getting that to work in my experience is difficult for implementations 16:41:48 ... So the approach I used for DAPT it to create one XSD 16:41:56 s/it to/is to/ 16:42:05 ... Hopefully that's easier to use 16:42:12 Andreas: Are you using XSD 1.0 or 1.1? 16:42:29 Nigel: It's 1.0, easier to get tooling that works with it 16:42:58 Topic: TTML2 - outdated banner 16:43:14 Nigel: The banner now points to the most recent version, as requested 16:43:27 ... Thanks to Atsushi and systeam 16:43:40 Topic: Charter 2025 16:43:51 Nigel: I drafted the charter 16:44:13 github: w3c/charter-timed-text#89 16:44:20 github: https://github.com/w3c/charter-timed-text/pull/89 16:46:02 Nigel: I've incremented the date by +2 years. I've adjusted the wording around teleconferences 16:46:20 ... I added mention of historical applications of TTML2 16:46:39 ... I fixed links, e.g., to the current Process 16:47:02 ... I added IMSC 1.3, reusing wording from previous editions 16:47:18 ... I added DAPT, and mention that it defines registries 16:47:31 ... TTML2 stays the same 16:47:39 ... I added ARIB as an external organisation 16:48:18 ... I haven't updated the charter history section 16:48:27 ... Please review and comment on the pull request 16:48:30 ... Any questions? 16:48:45 (nothing) 16:49:18 Nigel: We'll submit around the end of January? 16:49:40 Atsushi: We need to send advance notice, so I'll file a strategy issue in mid-December to highlight the charter discussion 16:50:35 Nigel: Anything anyone wants to raise about the charter? 16:50:43 (nothing) 16:50:55 Topic: AOB - Web Video Map Tracks (WebVMT) 16:51:09 Chris: This is another Charter out for AC review. 16:51:15 .. I'm here as an AC Rep reviewing the Charter. 16:51:21 .. It's the Spatial Data on the Web WG 16:51:39 .. One of the specs listed as in scope for potential maintenance is the WebVMT spec. 16:51:52 .. My question to you is whether you want this WG to be listed under the coordination 16:52:00 .. section for that WG given that they're basing work on WebVTT. 16:52:08 .. They don't list TTWG as coordination at the moment. 16:52:18 .. Would you want to see that, and if so, I'll mention it in the AC Review. 16:53:29 Gary: I don't see an issue with having TTWG listed, 16:53:38 .. but at the same time, it's clearly been working fine as is so 16:53:55 .. I don't think we necessarily should make the change to disapprove not having it. 16:54:07 .. Last time they needed a discussion we had that, and agreed no change to WebVTT on that occasion. 16:54:28 .. Not having it listed is not a blocker on anything [i.e. the groups talking to each other[ 16:54:36 e/r[/r] 16:54:58 cpn: As you say, it's fine to leave it as-is in coordination. 16:55:14 Gary: It could be "if you're making other changes feel free to add it but otherwise don't worry" 16:55:21 cpn: I could say that and leave it to their discretion. 16:56:42 Nigel: Would they prefer to have closer alignment and higher compatibility between the specs. At the moment it looks like WebVMT is inspired by WebVTT 16:57:06 Gary: WebVMT documents may not be valid WebVTT, e.g., by using the missing end time feature 16:57:29 Nigel: Is that something W3C should maintain as a constraint on these specs? 16:57:50 Gary: Maybe long term, it's not needed. If the formats diverge based on their needs, that's probably fine 16:58:28 Nigel: OTOH, if they think of some new spec change, we'd hopefully discuss as both groups might want it in their specs 16:59:10 ... I think the purpose of coordination is to have a list of groups to be consulted when there's a significant change 16:59:32 ... We don't list them in our charter coordination list. But i think it should be symmetrical 17:00:26 Atsushi: There are several meaning for the list: from just being interested, to having a more formal relationship 17:01:17 ... It seems to me some W3C groups are listed as just being interested. Not sure on the formality of this section 17:02:19 ... Not sure the Process needs a strict definition, just guidelines. It wouldn't factor too strongly in the team's review 17:03:30 Nigel: Another consideration relates to immersive captions. If we decide to work on adding 3D coordinates into caption formats, it relates to that group's use cases 17:03:50 ... While we aren't doing volumetric subtitles and captions, it has come up before and could again 17:04:09 Andreas: We discussed maybe 4 or 5 years ago, things in the market might have changed now 17:04:19 ... Could be a requirement for us 17:05:05 cpn: I think it's worth suggesting to them that TTWG is listed, without proposing a tight collaboration. 17:05:11 .. More a "keep us informed", and as a reminder as much as anything to come back to this group 17:05:26 .. should they have particular changes that might be worth including in both specs. 17:05:37 Topic: Meeting Close 17:05:48 Nigel: Thank you for scribing, Chris, we're 5 minutes over, let's adjourn. 17:05:54 .. See you in 2 weeks everyone! 17:06:01 .. [adjourns meeting] 17:07:10 rrsagent, make minutes 17:07:11 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/11/21-tt-minutes.html nigel 17:15:56 present- Chris. Nigel 17:16:01 present+ Chris, Nigel 17:16:16 s/cpn:/Chris:/g 17:17:15 s|e/r[/r]|| 17:17:19 s/r[/r] 17:17:27 rrsagent, make minutes 17:17:28 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/11/21-tt-minutes.html nigel 17:22:29 s/EBU TT-D metadata/EBU-TT Metadata 17:23:55 i/Nigel: Anything anyone/Nigel: That's perfect, thank you. 17:25:06 rrsagent, make minutes 17:25:07 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/11/21-tt-minutes.html nigel 17:25:34 scribeOptions: -final -noEmbedDiagnostics 17:25:38 zakim, end meeting 17:25:38 As of this point the attendees have been Gary, Chris., Nigel, Andreas, Matt, Cyril, Atsushi 17:25:40 RRSAgent, please draft minutes v2 17:25:41 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/11/21-tt-minutes.html Zakim 17:25:47 I am happy to have been of service, nigel; please remember to excuse RRSAgent. Goodbye 17:25:48 Zakim has left #tt 17:26:05 Agenda: https://github.com/w3c/ttwg/issues/295 17:26:14 Previous meeting: https://www.w3.org/2024/11/07-tt-minutes.html 17:26:17 rrsagent, make minutes 17:26:19 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/11/21-tt-minutes.html nigel 17:26:51 rrsagent, excuse us 17:26:51 I see no action items