15:00:06 RRSAgent has joined #tt 15:00:11 logging to https://www.w3.org/2025/04/24-tt-irc 15:00:11 RRSAgent, make logs Public 15:00:12 Meeting: Timed Text Working Group Teleconference 15:00:17 scribe: nigel 15:00:20 Regrets: Gary 15:00:22 Present: Nigel 15:00:24 Chair: Nigel 15:00:35 Previous meeting: https://www.w3.org/2025/03/27-tt-minutes.html 15:00:40 Agenda: https://github.com/w3c/ttwg/issues/305 15:01:49 Present+ Pierre, Andreas 15:02:14 Present+ Chris_Needham 15:02:17 atai has joined #tt 15:02:35 cpn has joined #tt 15:02:52 scribe+ cpn 15:03:36 Topic: This meeting 15:04:22 Nigel: [reviews the agenda] 15:04:45 ... Anything to add, or points to cover in those items? 15:04:50 (nothing) 15:05:18 Topic: Republication of png-hdr-pq WG Note 15:06:00 Nigel: PR 13 adds a warning note to point to PNG 3rd edition, in 2023. We haven't published an updated Note since then. 15:06:25 ... The Note was published in 2017, and the Editor's Draft is 2023 15:06:33 ... There are some broken references to fix too 15:06:58 ... Proposal is to republish this note to include the most recent edits 15:07:03 Present+ Cyril 15:07:18 Pierre: Sounds good 15:07:20 Chris: +1 15:07:50 PROPOSAL: Republish the PNG-HDR-PQ note to include the most recent edits 15:08:10 Nigel: Any objections? 15:08:13 no objections 15:08:20 RESOLUTION: Republish the PNG-HDR-PQ note to include the most recent edits 15:08:58 Nigel: Needs an editor, to fix some ReSpec errors 15:09:14 Pierre: I don't mind doing that 15:10:38 Pierre: I created https://github.com/w3c/png-hdr-pq/issues/14 15:11:05 -> https://github.com/w3c/png-hdr-pq/issues/12#issuecomment-2827988771 Comment about this resolution in the issue 15:11:23 Nigel: Anything else on this topic? 15:11:51 Pierre: After updating, how do we publish? 15:11:53 Topic: Apply streamlined publication to all of Note track documents 15:12:13 Nigel: We don't have auto-publication set up for Note track documents 15:12:28 ... Astushi asked if we wanted to do that 15:12:55 PROPOSAL: Apply streamlined publication to all Note track documents so that merging pull requests will trigger republication automatically 15:13:03 s/Astushi/Atsushi 15:13:17 Nigel: Any reasons not to do this? 15:13:23 Present+ Atsushi 15:13:52 (none raised) 15:14:03 RESOLUTION: Apply streamlined publication to all Note track documents so that merging pull requests will trigger republication automatically 15:14:26 Nigel: Atsushi, could you set this up for us please, starting with the PNG HDR PQ Note? 15:15:21 Atsushi: Will do 15:15:57 Topic: DAPT 15:16:11 Subtopic: Transition DAPT requirements WG draft Note as formal Note? 15:16:51 -> https://www.w3.org/TR/dapt-reqs/ DAPT Requirements WG Draft Note 15:17:03 PROPOSAL: Publish DAPT Requirements as a WG Note 15:17:52 Nigel: I think this is a useful document, and having a Note will be better to reference from the spec 15:17:59 ... Any concerns or questions? 15:18:28 Chris: Sounds good to me 15:18:57 RESOLUTION: Publish DAPT Requirements as a WG Note 15:19:29 Subtopic: Test suite 15:19:59 Nigel: Lots of the issues have been updated in dapt-tests recently 15:20:03 -> https://github.com/w3c/dapt-tests/issues dapt-tests repo issues 15:20:32 Nigel: I opened an issue for every feature that's listed in the implementation report, assuming we need tests for all of them 15:20:51 ... More recently, I've gone through the spec text and written some detail about what test resources we need 15:21:20 ... For example, valid and invalid cases for Profile Root 15:21:39 ... I expect, for all these features there are no presentation semantics to test, but there are validity cases 15:22:03 ... We'd expect one validator to confirm validity of valid tests, and invalidity of invalid tests 15:22:16 ... There's a question about authoring tools, that aren't validators 15:22:44 .. For those, I'd suggest a manual exercise to make the authoring tool generate output that stresses each feature should have that output be valid in a validator, 15:22:53 ... where the validator also passes the validation test for that feature 15:23:24 ... Essentially, if the validator seems to work, and if the authoring tool stresses the feature, we can say the authoring tool did it's job 15:23:28 ... Does that make sense? 15:23:53 Cyril: Yes. An authoring tool could exercise multiple features, so we don't need the same granularity 15:23:54 Nigel: Yes 15:24:26 Atsushi: What is WPT doing, for CSS, should be fine for us also 15:24:41 Nigel: CSS usually has visual output you can test against, but in our case we don't have that 15:25:43 Nigel: I've done 8 of them so far, just the analysis of test resources expected. Others welcome to contribute 15:25:51 ... My plan is to keep going through them, there are 9 left 15:26:31 Cyril: To confirm, we're not going to try to create tests for combinations of invalid features? 15:26:39 Nigel: I think we should keep them as separate as we can 15:27:11 Cyril: The tests shouldn't be just for passing the exit criteria, they should be also more useful for implementers 15:27:20 ... Maybe we can augment the test suite in the future 15:27:51 Nigel: Yes. Then we might want to discuss partitioning the files into CR exit criteria tests vs more general tests, or keep them all together 15:28:03 Cyril: I'd keep them all together, then the CR exit criteria tests is a subset 15:28:09 Nigel: That's fine 15:28:33 ... There's one place in the spec where you can't avoid testing related features together. Script Represents 15:29:11 ... We should keep the tests to the smallest test resource that does the job 15:29:22 Cyril: I was thinking of using an AI agent to generate tests 15:29:30 Nigel: As long as we can verify them, OK 15:29:46 Cyril: Just as a way to learn using the AI agent ;-) 15:30:41 Nigel: Anything else on tests and implementation reports to cover? 15:31:02 Cyril: Netflix will contribute its implementation, more an authoring tool / transformation processor than a validator 15:31:14 ... I don't have a coverage for AD parts. Do you have something for those parts? 15:31:27 Nigel: Yes, could be a third party one rather than BBC 15:31:33 ... I could probably do a validator as well 15:32:03 ... Different approaches there: augmenting the current TTT one, written in Java 15:32:23 Pierre: There's the toy validator created for TTML2, in JS, TTVAL 15:32:42 s/TTVAL/https://github.com/sandflow/ttval/ 15:32:52 ... It's simple to extend 15:33:48 ... If you're interested in this one, happy work with you on it 15:34:33 Cyril: To recap, in terms of passing exit criteria, if we have a validator, and a Netflix and BBC/Third party implementation, that passes the features, we're good to go? 15:34:37 Nigel: I think so 15:34:54 ... One of the implementers I spoke to said they may have something by IBC in September 15:35:15 ... May need to be quicker than that to include in the implementation report 15:35:28 Cyril: Better to have implementation feedback, in case they have suggested changes 15:35:35 +1 15:35:46 Atsushi: Implementation would be judged feature by feature, we have a two implementation requirement 15:37:07 Nigel: Yes, the exit criteria is feature by feature, rather than each implementation having to be complete with respect to all the features 15:37:42 Nigel: Anything else on DAPT tests or implementation reports? 15:37:47 (nothing) 15:37:52 Topic: IMSC 1.3 15:38:01 Subtopic: Outgoing liaisons regarding IMSC 1.3 and Image Profile 15:38:18 Nigel: You'll have seen all the outgoing liaisons I've sent 15:38:37 ... We have some responses, some about updating our liaison contact names 15:39:19 ... We've also asked on social media 15:39:27 ... Anything to say about early feedback? 15:40:03 Pierre: So far, it's been a surprise that nobody seems to have been using image profile across an ecosystem. It's used internally within some systems, but that's different 15:40:14 ... No suggestion anyone is interested in modifying or maintaining it 15:40:25 ... This is the private feedback I've received 15:40:54 Pierre: I'd be happy if someone wants to see changes or maintain it 15:41:19 ... Part of the challenge is it's hard to maintain if we don't know how people want to use it 15:41:28 ... Nothing so far really 15:41:34 ... We should give ourselves a deadline 15:41:47 Nigel: Some groups have a long response cycle... 15:41:53 Pierre: June? 15:42:24 Nigel: That's almost 3 months, a reasonable period, given some groups' response cycle 15:42:46 Pierre: We should aim to publish by end of this year, so go to CR soon 15:43:45 Atsushi: From W3C staff point of view, we might want to get more attention from external organisations, e.g., SMPTE 15:44:09 ... so I'd like to write some statement to TAG or W3C management to invite points of view, an email about the collaboration points 15:44:19 Nigel: I wrote to SMPTE 15:46:43 pal has joined #tt 15:47:30 Atsushi: Recently we got a small amount of interaction from W3C members. That means we could have smaller amount of interest among W3C members 15:47:41 ... We may need to gain more member interaction on the timed text work 15:48:08 ... Our output is quite stable, so updating activity should be quite low compared to other API development work in W3C 15:48:25 Nigel: What's the impact on IMSC 1.3? 15:49:13 Atsushi: There's some pressure that we need to gain impact from members of interest in our activity, or say new development is important for the public interest 15:49:58 ... This kind of public interest should be questioned for our new work in the chartering process. Allow time for development within W3C. I hope we could gain more interest from external parties to our activities in the near future 15:50:32 Nigel: I'm not clear what action we might take right now 15:51:06 ... Coming back to the liaisons, I sent them on 3 April. We have a call on 5 June, so let's use that to assess responses and come to a conclusion regarding image profile 15:51:21 Atsushi: That should be fine, as I understand 15:52:10 Nigel: Anything else about the liaisons? 15:52:17 (nothing) 15:52:21 Subtopic: Refer ARIB STD-B69 or STD-B62? 15:52:43 Nigel: Atsushi asked which ARIB document we should reference. Is there an easy answer? 15:53:40 Atsushi: I had a question from ARIB about the charter document. IMSC 1.3 defines ARIB STD-B62 but the charter and liaison statement mentions ARIB STD-B69, so they're wondering which is to be referenced from IMSC 1.3 15:54:12 ... They said originally we referred to B62 for everything, but were surprised the liaison statement referred to B69, and also that it's in the draft charter 15:54:27 Nigel: B62 has coding of closed captions 15:54:49 Atsushi: Both refer to our specification. I haven't checked the differences between them 15:55:12 ... They wonder if we want to update it to B69 from B62? 15:55:12 STD-B69: EXCHANGE FORMAT OF THE DIGITAL CLOSED CAPTION FILE FOR DIGITAL TELEVISION BROADCASTING SYSTEM 15:55:35 s/STD-B69: /Nigel: I looked it up and STD-B69 is 15:56:10 Nigel: Whereas STD-B62 is MULTIMEDIA CODING SPECIFICATION FOR DIGITAL BROADCASTING 15:56:30 Nigel: I don't mind, we can refer to both, it doesn't have to be one or the other 15:56:53 ... The latest B62 looks more recent than B69 15:57:02 ... No strong opinion 15:57:16 Pierre: Can we file an issue? 15:57:58 Atsushi: If we do that, I'd like to send an email to them about it. It's not a big issue, but we need to confirm 15:58:45 Nigel: Atsushi, could you please raise an issue in the IMSC repo? 15:59:36 ... Yes 15:59:44 s/... Yes/Atsushi: Yes/ 16:00:00 Topic: AOB 16:00:22 Nigel: The AC review of the TTWG charter has opened. Please encourage your AC rep to vote 16:01:08 Atsushi: Yes, we want responses from all the participating organisations 16:01:13 Chris: I've responded already 16:01:31 Atsushi: I've asked the Japanese organisations to vote, but some might abstain 16:02:02 Nigel: Next meeting in 2 weeks 16:02:37 [adjourned] 16:02:42 rrsagent, draft minutes 16:02:44 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/04/24-tt-minutes.html cpn 16:02:51 rrsagent, make log public 16:03:04 s/weeks/weeks on 2025-05-08 16:05:55 s/expect one validator to confirm validity of valid tests/expect any validator to confirm validity of valid tests 16:06:45 s/if the validator seems to work, and if the authoring tool stresses the feature, we/if the validator seems to work, and if the authoring tool stresses the feature, and the validator validates that output, we 16:07:42 s/together. Script Represents/together: represents and scriptRepresents 16:09:29 i/... Part of the challenge is/Nigel: Just want to record I have the same view, even though I proposed removing it. 16:09:39 s/... Part of the challenge is/Pierre: Part of the challenge is 16:10:45 s/isEXCHANGE/is EXCHANGE 16:11:03 rrsagent, make minutes 16:11:04 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/04/24-tt-minutes.html nigel 16:11:50 s/be happy if someone wants/be happy to keep Image Profile in IMSC 1.3 if someone wants 16:11:55 rrsagent, make minutes 16:11:56 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/04/24-tt-minutes.html nigel 16:12:45 scribeOptions: -final -noEmbedDiagnostics 16:12:50 zakim, end meeting 16:12:51 As of this point the attendees have been Nigel, Pierre, Andreas, Chris_Needham, Cyril, Atsushi 16:12:51 RRSAgent, please draft minutes v2 16:12:52 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/04/24-tt-minutes.html Zakim 16:12:58 I am happy to have been of service, nigel; please remember to excuse RRSAgent. Goodbye 16:12:59 Zakim has left #tt 16:13:12 rrsagent, excuse us 16:13:12 I see no action items