16:01:54 RRSAgent has joined #tt 16:01:59 logging to https://www.w3.org/2025/02/27-tt-irc 16:01:59 RRSAgent, make logs Public 16:02:00 Meeting: Timed Text Working Group Teleconference 16:02:30 scribe: nigel 16:02:35 Agenda: https://github.com/w3c/ttwg/issues/301 16:02:43 Previous meeting: https://www.w3.org/2025/02/13-tt-minutes.html 16:02:48 Present: Gary, Nigel 16:02:54 Chair: Gary, Nigel 16:03:07 Regrets: Chris_Needham, Andreas 16:03:18 Present+ Pierre 16:04:21 Present+ Cyril, Atsushi 16:04:28 Topic: This meeting 16:04:46 Nigel: Today we have some DAPT and IMSC stuff 16:04:57 .. Any other business, or points to make sure we cover within those topics? 16:05:50 Gary: AOB for timezone - next meeting will get us into the DST shenanigans 16:06:15 .. March 9 in the US, so 3 or 4 weeks difference 16:06:35 Topic: DAPT 16:07:06 Nigel: No issues or pulls listed for the agenda. 16:07:11 .. We do have a transition request. 16:07:17 .. for CR publication. 16:07:28 -> https://github.com/w3c/transitions/issues/693 Transition request for DAPT 16:07:57 Atsushi: The decision should be made on Friday 28th February. 16:08:14 .. I cued myself to prepare for a March 5th publication. 16:08:25 Nigel: Do you need anything from us? 16:08:46 Atsushi: No, I may open a PR for the final up to date tweaks but I don't believe there is anything 16:08:54 .. to be done by the WG for publication. 16:09:25 Nigel: I wondered about comms, blog posts etc. 16:09:41 Atsushi: I should be able to handle those. 16:09:55 Nigel: For most stuff you will just update the existing CR? 16:09:57 Atsushi: Yes 16:10:14 Nigel: Good news, good to get there. 16:10:24 Atsushi: Thank you for your patience with the formal procedure. 16:10:34 Nigel: Any questions about this? 16:11:00 Subtopic: Implementation Report 16:11:29 -> https://www.w3.org/wiki/TimedText/DAPT_Implementation_Report DAPT Implementation Report 16:11:45 Nigel: I had the action to update it to add recently added features and at risk features. 16:11:53 .. I have now done that. 16:12:00 .. The added feature was #descType. 16:12:57 .. I started looking again at the XSD earlier, and have hit an error I don't understand yet. 16:13:11 .. The next big step for us is to create test material for all the DAPT features. 16:14:07 Cyril: FYI re DAPT. 16:14:17 .. Last week I attended Mile High Video in Denver. 16:14:30 .. There were a few presentations about dubbing, mainly academics. 16:14:45 .. For example changing the speed of speech to accommodate dubbing. 16:15:03 .. I was able to promote DAPT and encourage implementation feedback. 16:15:09 Nigel: Sounds good! 16:15:47 Topic: IMSC 1.3 16:16:21 Nigel: One pull request flagged for the agenda, re namespaces. 16:16:25 .. Anything else to cover? 16:16:32 Pierre: We could do #551 too. 16:16:57 Update namespace documents w3c/imsc#589 16:17:15 s/Update/Subtopic: Update 16:17:24 github: https://github.com/w3c/imsc/pull/589 16:18:03 Nigel: Two things to cover. 16:18:13 .. First is can we publish the namespace documents? 16:18:32 Atsushi: I have not reached a conclusion myself about what should be in the namespace documents. 16:18:46 .. For this moment what I can do is open pull requests to the W3C namespace document repo, 16:18:57 .. and ask for review or comment or suggestion etc. on the PR. 16:19:23 .. I am not sure if there should be any negotiation or knowledge of the existing documents, 16:19:35 .. but I personally have not enough knowledge at this moment. 16:20:00 .. I am now just tending to opening the pull request and asking for review including from plh and others 16:20:05 .. for meeting namespace documents. 16:20:43 .. If you don't have any comments about the contents then let me get comments from the wider 16:20:56 .. team including plh or others who worked on DTD and XML before. 16:21:00 Nigel: OK 16:21:15 Atsushi: I understand that the definitions are not necessary for us since there is almost no tool 16:21:26 .. who are querying the namespace documents on the fly. 16:21:58 .. I heard there are some toolchains e.g. for RDF and JSON-LD that access a namespace definition file 16:22:15 .. every time they have to validate something. If there are tools like that in IMSC space... 16:22:19 Pierre: There's no such tool 16:22:31 Atsushi: I believe we just need some static HTML. 16:22:37 Pierre: What do you need to make progress? 16:22:48 Atsushi: To be honest this is the first time I'm updating namespace documents. 16:22:57 Nigel: See for example the TTML2 one: 16:23:03 -> https://www.w3.org/ns/ttml/ 16:23:13 Atsushi: Best I can do is learn from existing documents. 16:24:37 Nigel: This is maybe much simpler than you are thinking! 16:24:51 .. It just needs to be a resource you get when you dereference the namespace URL. 16:25:34 Atsushi: Let me open the pull request 16:25:36 https://github.com/himorin/w3c-ns/pull/1 16:25:52 Nigel: This is where we got to 1 month ago when we discussed it. The action is the same. 16:26:22 Atsushi: Let me try and I will consult if I get any comments. 16:26:31 .. I can prepare the similar thing for IMSC immediately. 16:26:44 .. If this one for DAPT is accepted then I could immediately create the IMSC one. 16:27:11 Nigel: I think the IMSC one is more urgent. 16:27:22 Atsushi: I will prepare one for IMSC in parallel to this. 16:27:46 Nigel: OK, then the next thing to consider is the substantive content of the PR. 16:28:55 .. I had two proposals. One was to add fragment IDs. 16:29:00 Pierre: That was by design. 16:29:15 .. The fragment identifier is not part of the URI, it's a UA behaviour. 16:29:27 .. As I recall the discussion many moons ago, the fragment is not part of the namespace when you 16:29:30 .. resolve it. 16:29:47 .. This is all because we are using URIs that happen to be HTTP URLs, and the fragment is not part of the URI 16:29:50 .. that is being dereferenced. 16:30:37 .. The HTTP GET request does not include the fragment ID, it's only the UA that looks for that id 16:30:40 .. when the document is loaded. 16:31:48 Nigel: Then I would change my proposal to list the namespaces with fragment IDs in the HTML documents. 16:32:07 Pierre: That's needless duplication of the Namespace section in the specification. 16:32:20 .. The sole purpose is to get a reference back from the namespace into the defining document. 16:33:25 .. Once you get that non-machine-readable namespace document, you get told where to go to find 16:33:32 .. the meaning of the namespace requested. 16:33:44 .. I don't want to duplicate. I want these documents to be as simple as possible. 16:35:22 Nigel: I think it's a weird user journey to put in one of the namespaces from the IMSC spec, 16:35:36 .. then get taken to a page that says "this spec defines that namespace" but doesn't actually list 16:35:48 .. any of the strings in the spec, which all have fragment identifiers! 16:36:03 Pierre: We could change the wording to encompass all fragment identifier suffixes too. 16:36:10 Nigel: That could work, yes. 16:36:19 Pierre: We need to get the correct wording for that concept. 16:36:44 Nigel: OK, should we wordsmith that now? 16:36:53 Pierre: Probably should, since we're here and it's the last issue. 16:37:21 Nigel: Now we have: 16:37:35 .. "The namespace http://www.w3.org/ns/ttml/profile/imsc1 is specified by ..." 16:37:46 Pierre: [looks up RFC3986] 16:38:35 .. "secondary resource" is one term used in RFC3986. 16:38:47 .. "The fragment identifier part allows ..." 16:39:42 pal has joined #tt 16:39:48 .. So we could say "The namespace http://www.w3.org/ns/ttml/profile/imsc1 and all secondary resources identified by additional fragment identifiers are specified by ..." 16:40:14 Pierre: Yes that's good 16:40:26 .. [implements that in the PR] 16:40:33 Pierre: You had another orthogonal concern. 16:42:25 Nigel: Yes, mapping the versions in namespaces to the IMSC document versions, 16:42:41 .. IMSC 1.1 Image namespace is an outlier pointing to IMSC 1.2 spec. 16:43:10 Pierre: We want to point people to 1.2 because we improved the spec document compared to 1.1 16:43:35 .. even if we didn't make substantive changes. 16:43:42 Nigel: OK that's a strong enough argument for me. 16:44:14 Pierre: And you were a strong proponent of pointing people to the latest version of the spec. 16:44:17 Nigel: True! 16:44:37 Pierre: I agree it's annoying to have a version number that points you to a spec with a different version 16:44:48 .. number that then points you back to another one! 16:45:07 Nigel: OK I think we have enough to resolve on this. 16:46:28 SUMMARY: @himorin to open pull request to implement this PR change; Keep the existing version mappings as in this PR now; update the IMSC namespace doc to include secondary resources. 16:46:38 Pierre: I've done the secondary resource change. 16:47:36 Nigel: I've approved it. 16:48:32 Pierre: Should I merge it? 16:48:45 Nigel: Yes merge it, and if there's feedback let's handle in a different ticket. 16:48:58 github-bot, end topic 16:49:12 Pierre: Thank you everybody 16:49:43 Atushi: I can use this merge to support this with W3C team in discussions if needed. 16:50:24 Subtopic: Wording of example for WCAG SC 1.1.1 w3c/imsc#551 16:50:33 github: https://github.com/w3c/imsc/issues/551 16:51:12 Nigel: I raised a suggestion to resolve the APA comment by removing Image Profile from IMSC in 1.3 16:51:23 Pierre: I'm not philosophically opposed to this. 16:51:42 .. I'm not sure it's the best thing, it would require time to inform the community, 16:51:48 .. and I'm not sure we have the time this time around. 16:51:55 .. That's why I'm not super excited. 16:52:09 .. But for a later iteration, we should probably open an issue specifically on this, 16:52:28 .. so that we remember it for v.next, but for now just stick to revising the note, which I think is great. 16:52:44 Nigel: Ah, good that you liked the proposal. 16:53:07 .. What kind of conversations do we need to have with the community about this? 16:53:17 Pierre: We need to tell people we are stopping work on image profile. 16:53:33 .. But we're also saying IMSC 1.3 might be a version we can never obsolete, because it 16:53:42 .. is the last version supporting Image Profile. 16:54:00 .. We have to remember that the last version of IMSC containing Image Profile should not be 16:54:13 .. obsoleted because even though it might not be up to date for Text Profile, for Image Profile 16:54:16 .. it might be the right onw. 16:54:22 .. Or we split the documents. 16:54:36 Gary: Is it possible to add a non-normative note to the Image Profile section saying we're considering 16:54:41 .. removing it from future editions. 16:54:54 Pierre: I found one of those notes in the current version of the document and we never acted on them. 16:55:05 Gary: Maybe update the note to make it more prominent and follow through. 16:55:11 .. That could be the signal to notify the community. 16:55:17 Pierre: I think we should just talk about it. 16:55:26 Gary: That too. It would be good to have it in the spec. 16:55:32 .. An "official" documentation for it. 16:55:46 Pierre: If it helps you, I'm happy to do it. 16:55:48 s/onw/one 16:56:06 .. I think we should post a message on the SMPTE, W3C, EBU, DASH-IF reflectors etc. 16:56:12 Gary: Community outreach is more important. 16:56:29 Pierre: If we get no feedback maybe we should do it now. 16:56:41 Gary: I guess what are the timelines for IMSC 1.3 and how long do we want to wait. 16:56:55 Pierre: Someone who really cares about it should respond quickly. 16:57:07 .. If we compose a standard message that says we're considering no longer maintaining 16:57:24 .. IMSC Image Profile and it will be forever the one in IMSC 1.2 or IMSC 1.3, let us know what you think. 16:57:41 .. And we go to the various groups with that, and convey that message, and 16:57:51 .. nobody complains and everyone supports, I think I'd be comfortable to remove it. 16:58:00 .. But the second someone says they use it extensively and want to add something, then 16:58:26 .. it sets a longer discussion going. But if nobody complains in a defined timeline, I'd be comfortable removing it. 17:02:03 Nigel: My argument in favour of your proposal Pierre is that we have no proposals for any feature changes 17:02:21 .. relating to Image Profile, but we have already diluted it somewhat compared to 1.2 by removing the 17:02:54 .. HRM applicability. So anyone currently using Image Profile is subject to the HRM constraints, 17:03:24 .. whereas if we keep Image Profile in 1.3 and publish it, then it isn't clear whether an Image Profile 17:04:00 .. document meets the HRM constraints or not. So if there's industry support, removing Image profile 17:04:25 .. now would be cleaner, and would make 1.2 the last version with Image Profile support. 17:05:12 SUMMARY: @nigelmegitt to open new issue for dropping Image Profile, and to open a pull request with proposed note text; consider industry messaging offline. 17:05:19 Topic: Meeting close 17:05:36 Nigel: We're over time - Gary do you have a proposal for the DST change? 17:05:55 Gary: Last time we stuck with UTC so the meeting was an hour later in the US. 17:06:05 Nigel: That works for me if it works for everyone else. 17:06:15 .. [adjourns meeting] 17:06:19 rrsagent, make minutes 17:06:20 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/02/27-tt-minutes.html nigel 17:11:02 s/That was by design./[Omitting fragment identifiers] was by design. 17:11:43 s/all have fragment identifiers!/all have fragment identifiers. 17:12:14 s/.. So we could say/Nigel: So we could say 17:13:17 s/github-bot, end topic//g 17:15:11 s/Atushi/Atsushi/g 17:15:20 rrsagent, make minutes 17:15:21 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/02/27-tt-minutes.html nigel 17:16:00 scribeOptions: -final -noEmbedDiagnostics 17:16:03 zakim, end meeting 17:16:03 As of this point the attendees have been Gary, Nigel, Pierre, Cyril, Atsushi 17:16:05 RRSAgent, please draft minutes v2 17:16:06 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/02/27-tt-minutes.html Zakim 17:16:12 I am happy to have been of service, nigel; please remember to excuse RRSAgent. Goodbye 17:16:13 Zakim has left #tt 17:16:19 rrsagent, excuse us 17:16:19 I see no action items