Meeting minutes
This meeting
Introduction
Nigel: [reviews the agenda]
… Anything else, or points in those topics?
(nothing)
Republication of png-hdr-pq WG Note
Nigel: Atsushi, what's the status?
Atsushi: There was a comment that one PR should be merged before publication
… I'll follow up
Nigel: There's one open issue, about publishing the note, no PRs
… We fixed some Respec issues last week
Atsushi: Let me work on that
Apply streamlined publication to all of Note track documents
Nigel: Is any action needed here?
Atsushi: I don't think there's anything remaining, other than png-hdr-pq. We could configure streamlined publication for everything, which would need a decision. We have one Registry as Note, so may be possible to configure that
… TTML Profile Definitions Registry
Nigel: I think we decided last meeting to configure streamlined publication for all Notes. I didn't get any feedback in the decision review period
Atsushi: Let me put the config for the registry and the ?? format
Nigel: Anything else on this?
(nothing)
DAPT
Transition DAPT requirements WG draft Note as formal Note
Nigel: This has been done
Atsushi: The GH Action publishes the note. The same-day publication may confuse some systems. I can push tomorrow to re-run the job
Nigel: There's one open PR
Add links to MAUR requirements w3c/dapt-reqs#23
github: w3c/
Nigel: This is work I did years ago, for the predecessor, ADPT, all still correct since that time. So I was able to copy/paste the previous work
… It's had some previous review from that time. It would be useful to review again, if anyone is able to
SUMMARY: Review requested
Consider PS4 and PS5 sequential w3c/dapt-reqs#20
github: w3c/
Nigel: This issue is about the diagram. PS4 and PS5 are independent things that can both be done. Cyril's point was that both are done in some workflows
… Is it OK to do nothing? Should we put a double headed arrow between these boxes?
… The text looks OK as it says they can be done in parallel
Chris: How to depict either/or in a flowchart?
Nigel: I think either a double headed arrow, or arrows both ways would be enough
Cyril: Happy to do nothing or add an arrow. Want to avoid adding another state that needs a type of script
Nigel: I agree
SUMMARY: @nigelmegitt to add a double-headed arrow between PS4 and PS5
DAPT Test suite
Nigel: As far as I know, there's been no comment. When we're agreed on what the test should have, and the resources we need, we can start drafting PRs.
… The quickest way forward is to review the planning comments I added
Cyril: I mentioned last time using some AI tools to do it. I gave it a try, using ttval, seem to be getting there
… Then we can ask for tests closer to what you expected
… It makes lots of mistakes! I can put some more time into it, but I'm confident I can produce the validator and some tests
… Does it meet the implementation criteria?!
… I can tell you more about it next time, or separately
… It definitely changes how the spec should be written. Give rules to the AI generator to generate text, and the suite at the same time. For sure it should change how we operate standards
Nigel: You could get the agent to read my comments on the issues and generate tests to match...
… Anything else on the test suite?
(nothing)
Add transcription and translation, including subtitles, to the abstract w3c/dapt#290
Nigel: I looked at this again before merging. The change is to the Abstract, when I read it I wondered why not include in production of hard of hearing subtitles?
… Do we agree to add this in?
Cyril: If we've done subtitles, we should include hard of hearing
Matt: I agree
Nigel: Any other views?
(nothing)
SUMMARY: @nigelmegitt to include hard of hearing subtitles aka closed captions in the abstract
IMSC 1.3
Nigel: Can we enable PR preview?
<atsushi> https://
Atsushi: A config is there so thought it was working
… we have other bots that haven't been working, so let me check later
Nigel: Are we ready to publish FPWD yet?
Pierre: If we want to remove the image profile, we should do that before FPWD
Nigel: We're expecting feedback
Pierre: The feedback I have so far, no-one has said they're using or care about it
… Also, when we go about removing it, if it turns out to be hard, we might defer that
Nigel: The main change is to remove a column from the table
Pierre: Yes
Nigel: We will wait for feedback before publishing FPWD then.
Nigel: What about the namespace documents? Ah, there has been some email. Something needs changing in CVS?
Atsushi: I'll check on how to get approval to push to CVS
… Most W3C specs aren't using namespace
Refer ARIB STD-B69 or STD-B62?
Atsushi: I wrote a summary into the issue. There are two documents describing ARIB TTML. The main one is STD-B62 which describes ARIB extensions to TTML, including metadata and ??
… There's a recent updated, and extended configuration in the Japanese broadcasting area, e.g. for 4K or 8K satellite broadcasting
… There's some demand to describe TTML file metadata to attach properties to the entire TTML file
… STD-B69 is designed to cover such entire file metadata, to be included as a tt:metadata section
… It only extends the tt:metadata object, but doesn't touch the tt:body content
… Some extensions to be defined in metadata, but basically B69 is just for extensions to tt:metadata which is not related to ittm, which is metadata related to tt:body content
… I believe we should refer to STD-B62 for IMSC 1.3 or previous versions
… So don't need a pull request for IMSC 1.3, but may be good to include B69 and B62 in the charter that's currently under AC review
… This discussion started because the charter describes B69
<atsushi> https://
Nigel: It seems fair to mention both B62 and B69 in the charter
… Could the Team add a comment on the charter?
Atsushi: It could come from anyone
Chris: The Charter already mentions one but not the other?
… It makes me wonder if this is too specific for a Charter, mentioning specific documents?
Atsushi: This discussion was initiated by an offline comment on the charter.
… The last two discussions were that we should investigate if a change is needed to IMSC 1.3 or not.
… Today's discussion concludes that we do not need to update IMSC 1.3 but we may need to include
… both in the proposed Charter.
Chris: The charter draft mentions B69 now.
Gary: It says "including ARIB STD-B69"
… It might be nicer to reference B62 but it probably doesn't matter that much.
Atsushi: It is too narrow a part of the Charter, not too serious, maybe a cosmetic errata.
Chris: I've seen this happen in other group charters where minor issues like this are addressed by
… the team and then the AC responders are asked to confirm they're happy with it.
… It's better to add both and be explicit about it.
… I think it should not cause any difficulty in the charter review.
Atsushi: Yes, there is no difficulty but someone needs to raise a comment.
… Of course I can, but someone needs to raise a comment.
Nigel: So B69 doesn't actually define ARIB-TTML, B62 does that?
Atsushi: Yes, B62 defines the profile, and B69 just extends the metadata.
Nigel: The text at the moment is wrong, probably my fault.
… The important thing is that we include ARIB in the external organisations.
… It's just an error at the moment.
Chris: If you need an AC member comment I can do that.
… I'll just submit a comment.
Atsushi: Thank you for that.
<atsushi> MULTIMEDIA CODING SPECIFICATION
<atsushi> FOR DIGITAL BROADCASTING
<atsushi> (SECOND GENERATION)
Nigel: Thank you!
Atsushi: Thank you for that.
Charter review
Nigel: Please ask your AC reps to review
… It's really helpful to have organisations who participate in the group to respond to the charter
Chris: Could email specific AC reps or the MEIG list
Pierre: For spec maintenance work, I think the team should instruct members to vote yes. Otherwise important maintenance won't happen
Atsushi: Most charter AC reviews get 5-10% of member organisations submitting responses
TPAC 2025 planning
Gary: TPAC 2025 will be 10 to 14 November 2025 in Kobe, Japan
… We have until June 20 to say if we're meeting and which slots we want to request.
Gary: There's nothing we have to do today. TPAC is November 10-14 in Kobe, Japan. Planning has started, we have until June 20th to ask for meeting time.
… There are 4 slots per day except on wednesday.
… We need to say which groups we want to avoid conflict with.
Nigel: We have 3 calls before that deadline. Good to do as soon as possible. Please think about it, whether you'd attend or not
Gary: Also potential topics, which informs the number of slots we want. Because it's in Japan, people in Europe or US might not attend remotely
… So if we don't have many people in person, we'll need to figure out whether to meet
Meeting close
Nigel: Next meeting is 22nd May
… Thanks everyone [adjourns meeting]
S/Topic: Introduction//