Meeting minutes
This meeting
Nigel: Today we have DAPT, IMSC1.3 and Charter
… Any other business, or points or points to make sure we cover?
Atsushi: None from me
DAPT
CR publication status
Atsushi: During my previous meeting with i18n, there was no issue with DAPT delta.
… I am still pushing for security. I am mostly offline this week and will try to catch up with emails later, sorry.
Nigel: Key point: you haven't raised the transition request?
Atsushi: I haven't, no, but I will push for security.
Nigel: If they are not responding, I think we should push ahead.
Cyril: I agree. Are they only reviewing the delta?
Atsushi: The delta and the security section.
Cyril: What is the delta?
Nigel: Nothing significant, for me. The security section just points to TTML2.
Cyril: I think we should proceed, it's taken a long time already.
Nigel: Can we put a time limit on it, or can plh?
Atsushi: I don't want to wait more than several weeks. I will try to catch up with email and send something to plh shortly.
Nigel: OK.
… Anything else for CR publication?
nothing
Implementation Report
Nigel: No change to the IR since last meeting
Issues and pull requests for discussion
Nigel: 2 pull requests marked as agenda
Add an XSD w3c/dapt#273
github: w3c/
Nigel: I opened this PR on 15th November
… It adds an XML Schema 1.0 XSD to the DAPT repo
… No change to the spec. Not normative, just editorial.
… But useful nonetheless.
… Cyril, you tried it and found some issues, which I think I've fixed.
… How's it looking?
Cyril: I haven't had a chance to test the latest fixes but they probably will work.
… My feedback is: I misunderstood at first when I looked at the folder.
… I thought the TTML ones were pure copies, but you've actually modified them.
… Would be good to have a README or a description.
Nigel: I actually added a README for that exact reason!
Cyril: Oh, fine, I should have looked!
Nigel: I agree, it could catch people out.
… Also the need to check out recursively because it uses a git submodule for the EBU-TT metadata.
Cyril: Does that have an example or a list of tools that could be used?
… I used XMLLint and it would not recognise some constructs in the XSD so I had to change.
Nigel: Do you know what it didn't recognise?
Cyril: There was a dapt.xsd and a dapt-all.xsd, and the dapt-all uses a mix of include and import.
… I had to use the dapt.xsd.
Nigel: Ah, dapt-all brings other XSDs in by namespace alone and depends on your tool config.
… Maybe we should remove dapt-all.
Cyril: Would it produce false positives or false negatives?
Nigel: If your tool is configured to point at the unmodified TTML XSDs for the TTML namespace then
… it might successfully validate constructs that are prohibited in DAPT.
Cyril: I'd agree with your suggestion to remove dapt-all then.
Nigel: I used XSD 1.0 because there are more free tools available that use it.
… It's restricted compared to XSD 1.1 and makes it harder to constrain or apply additional rules
… based on an unmodified TTML XSD.
SUMMARY: @nigelmegitt to remove dapt-all and modify the README to match
[group discussion of the merits of different types of validation tool]
Cyril: For the community in general, a validation tool is super useful.
Nigel: Very much so, and Ben Poor from EBU's Eurovox used the XSD to find an issue with some DAPT
… that the tool was generating, so it showed its value within a day.
Issue 0274 xml id editorial improvements w3c/dapt#275
github: w3c/
Nigel: Going back to Ben from Eurovox's feedback (see w3c/
… which included an unprompted comment that the spec is well written and easy to read and implement,
… he did note that he missed xml:id because it was absent from the examples,
… and he wouldn't have noticed that it cannot begin with a digit, say.
… So I opened the issue and this pull request to help others avoid falling into the same trap.
… Would be good to get a review because I think this would be helpful for people.
Cyril: I will try to do that.
… What's the procedure, should we merge the editorial changes in before the transition request?
Atsushi: The transition request will use the latest version of the draft.
Cyril: OK, and we're allowed to do that because there was no substantive change since the CfC?
Atsushi: I believe so. Of course the CfC could be resolved in 1 week or so, so we could reissue the decision
… but we don't have substantive change since last time.
Nigel: Right, we have no proposals for a substantive change,
… Plus, our working mode for the group is that pull requests _are_ a form of CfC,
… that's why we have the 2 week review period, and do not merge if there are Requests Changes reviews
… outstanding.
… My plan is, if we merge these pull requests before the transition request,
… then I will rebase the transition request branch to include the merged changes,
… and as long as they are only editorial, and not substantive, then I do not think any further
… action or consultation should be needed.
… It would be the same as issuing a CRD (CR Draft) after the CR, but avoiding an admin step.
SUMMARY: @cconcolato to review
IMSC 1.3 - actions to get started?
Nigel: Deferring this since Pierre has not been able to join us today
Charter 2025
Nigel: I've had no comments on the Charter pull request.
… Chris Needham has offered to take a look at it also.
… I think the action is with Atsushi to review in comparison with the charter template.
… Not a high priority now, at least not urgent.
… I'm just trying to get ahead!
Meeting Close
Nigel: We've completed our agenda.
… Next meeting will be on the 19th December, last one of this calendar year.
… I have cancelled the meeting scheduled for 2nd January 2025, so the first meeting in 2025
… will be on January 16th.
… Thanks everyone. [adjourns meeting]