14:59:54 RRSAgent has joined #tt 14:59:58 logging to https://www.w3.org/2025/07/03-tt-irc 14:59:58 RRSAgent, make logs Public 14:59:59 Meeting: Timed Text Working Group Teleconference 15:00:11 Agenda: https://github.com/w3c/ttwg/issues/310 15:00:13 scribe: nigel 15:00:19 Present: Nigel 15:00:22 Chair: Nigel 15:00:30 Regrets: Gary, Cyril 15:00:39 Previous meeting: https://www.w3.org/2025/06/19-tt-minutes.html 15:00:49 rrsagent, make minutes 15:00:50 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/07/03-tt-minutes.html nigel 15:01:31 Present+ Andreas 15:03:52 Present+ Pierre 15:05:34 Topic: This meeting 15:06:16 Present+ Atsushi 15:06:43 Nigel: [iterates through agenda] 15:07:14 .. Anything else for the agenda, or points to cover within the agenda? 15:07:47 Andreas: nothing from me 15:07:52 Atsushi: I don't have anything else 15:08:04 Topic: Apply streamlined publication to all of Note track documents 15:08:17 Nigel: As far as I know, this is complete and can come off the agenda from now on. 15:08:31 .. The last piece of this was the TTML Profiles Registry Note, which should now be working. 15:08:54 cpn has joined #tt 15:08:56 atai has joined #tt 15:09:07 present+ Chris_Needham 15:09:07 scribe+ 15:09:11 .. There are probably some really old WG Notes that we're not working on and haven't for years. 15:09:24 .. We can ignore them unless we start working on them again, which is extremely unlikely. 15:10:05 Topic: DAPT 15:10:16 Subtopic: Test suite 15:10:39 Nigel: We have the structure of the test suite, and content 15:10:54 ... Needs validating and checking, it may need some adjustment 15:11:10 ... I haven't added links to the tests from the implementation report, that's still to do 15:11:30 ... Some changes have happened during the review. Of the features we had, one was a presentation test, and all the others are validation tests 15:12:07 ... Related to script event grouping. Cyril noticed that this is about the ability to nest divs, and TTML1 has a nested div feature 15:12:22 ... Opened a feature to remove script event grouping and replace with nested div 15:12:31 ... It's not a new feature in DAPT so it can be removed 15:12:48 ... Just checking ... PR 304 15:13:00 -> https://github.com/w3c/dapt/pull/304 Switch #scriptEventGrouping to #nested-div w3c/dapt#304 15:13:33 Nigel: This will also mean that the at-risk feature, #scriptEventGrouping, would need to change to nested div 15:13:41 ... But I hope to close that without it being removed 15:14:12 ... There's a separate PR on dapt-tests, #38 to remove those tests. That simplifies things, and makes CR exit criteria simpler to achieve as well 15:14:21 ... That's good all round 15:15:26 -> https://github.com/w3c/dapt/issues/297 Required #xmlId-div doesn't match other spec text w3c/dapt#297 15:16:01 Nigel: This got lost in different conversations. The way it was worded in the DAPT spec, the feature extension required every div element to have an xml:id attribute 15:16:17 ... That was contrary to other text in the spec that they didn't have to, so it didn't make sense 15:17:15 .. I proposed 3 resolutions to it. Remove the script event mapping, or to modify the scope of xmlId-div, or to look at how to identify whether it's a script event 15:17:32 ... I thought the first option was the best way. I talked with Cyril last week, and he agreed 15:17:50 ... That simplifies things, and this gave rise to PR #298 15:18:00 -> https://github.com/w3c/dapt/pull/298 Remove #xmlId-div feature w3c/dapt#298 15:19:03 Nigel: These things together will simplify DAPT, the test suite, and the implementation report, so it's a positive. If you disagree, please let me know 15:19:15 Andreas: Makes sense to me 15:20:13 Nigel: There are 4 open PRs at the moment. There's an informative editorial one on pop prevention, Cyril seems happy with that. There's been some discussion with Simon 15:20:26 -> https://github.com/w3c/dapt/pull/301 Add an informative section about pop prevention w3c/dapt#301 15:21:22 ... Nigel: Techniques to prevent audio pops, e.g., to have a steep ramp up, or having them start at zero, or having a guard 15:21:39 ... Simon had a particular preference, and I don't want to be too prescriptive 15:22:22 -> https://github.com/w3c/dapt/pull/300 Explicitly permit daptm:represents on tt, body, div, p and span w3c/dapt#300 15:22:24 s/... Nigel/Nigel/ 15:23:00 Nigel: We had a previous PR, #294, where Andreas and Cyril agreed it had gone too var, adding it to p and span attributes. So I removed the support from p and span in the PR 15:24:02 ... Separately I added another issue to add to p and span, #295, seems to make sense to allow script represents. It could lead to cases people might not expect 15:24:33 ... You could have a p element corresponding to a text, saying it represents one thing and a span inside that says it represents something else 15:24:45 ... So you'd have to compute what it represents 15:26:01 ... Imagine an AD that contains both a description of things in the video image, also some written text. They could have different represents values on them 15:26:23 .. But you might want the description so people understand they're different things, and recorded in one go 15:26:45 ... In that case you'd have to create multiple script events for the thing supposed to be read out together, and adjust the timings 15:27:32 ... Hard to predict that, so you'd have to fix it after recording. It's overly complicated. You'd want to use a single audio recording 15:27:36 ... Hope this makes sense! 15:28:24 Andreas: I looked at the PR based on previous issues on clarity of the inheritance, to clarify where represents can sit. I didn't notice you added a note that represents can be on the span level. Is that right? 15:28:26 Nigel: Yes 15:28:34 Andreas: Makes sense to me, given the use case 15:29:06 ... It can be applied further down, to text objects 15:29:24 Nigel: Yes, it has been updated 15:29:28 ... It should be clear 15:29:44 ... It's allowed on p as well 15:29:46 Andreas: OK 15:30:11 Nigel: Thanks. As all the PRs reach their 2 week review period, we'll close them off. If there are related tests, I'll fix those 15:30:22 ... Once they're all done, we should publish a new CR snapshot 15:31:10 PROPOSAL: When the currently open pull requests have been closed (by merging or otherwise), request transition to CRS 15:32:15 q+ wide review? 15:32:34 ack at 15:32:46 ack wide 15:32:47 ack review 15:33:01 Atsushi: Wide review? When something changes we need to request wide review for CRS publication 15:33:24 ... We have several small substantive changes as far as I know 15:33:34 Nigel: We've updated the substantive changes document 15:33:59 Atsushi: And for the open PRs... 15:34:21 Nigel: We should do a diff between the updated version and the previous CRS. It's worth checking 15:34:33 ... Do we need to request horizontal review on the delta? 15:35:02 Atsushi: Just need to request a delta review with a list of substantive changes, or list of PRs, not a full review 15:35:17 Nigel: So following the HR process, for a delta 15:35:48 Atsushi: We need to say it's specifically a delta and point to the changes. I don't expect any groups to have concerns 15:36:17 Nigel: Do we need to do this before requesting the CR snapshort, or do at the same time? 15:37:18 Atsushi: CRS publication has several requirements, including getting wide review. Until we show wide review has been completed, the transition request won't be validated 15:37:36 Nigel: So we should do it sooner rather than later 15:38:00 Atsushi: As a delta review, it shouldn't take long 15:38:30 Nigel: To clarify, you said wide review. Do we need to share with industry more widely, or just with our stakeholders? 15:38:49 Atsushi: Horiziontal review groups, but the group wants, we can ask liaisons 15:39:21 Nigel: Don't want to wait too long. I could send a message or write a blog post that's public 15:40:07 Nigel: Anything else to raise on DAPT? 15:40:17 (nothing) 15:40:21 Topic: IMSC 1.3 15:40:30 Subtopic: FPWD publication 15:41:18 Nigel: I sent a CfC two weeks ago. I'm not aware of any objections. I asked for comments in favour of the proposal, and Glenn replied 15:41:32 ... I'm in favour, does anyone want to express a view? 15:41:41 Pierre: I fully support it! 15:42:13 Nigel: Any other views? 15:42:15 (nothing) 15:43:19 -> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tt/2025Jun/0013.html CfC to publish IMSC 1.3 Text as a FPWD 15:43:32 RESOLUTION: Publish IMSC Text Profile 1.3 as a First Public Working Draft 15:44:01 Nigel: What happens next? 15:44:20 Atsushi: When that's sent to public-tt, I'll send the transition request 15:44:55 Nigel: I assume we want automatic publication of a new WD? Let's do that 15:45:06 ... Any editorial work needed to prepare the draft? 15:45:24 Atsushi: At the moment, with manual publication there are some additional configurations to do 15:45:35 ... After that I'll submit a PR for automated publication 15:45:50 ... We should use github.io for the ED 15:46:11 Nigel: Any concerns, Pierre? 15:47:01 Pierre: No. It should be pretty unremarkable, not needing testing as it's in TTML2, we've removed a feature. We should move quickly 15:47:21 ... We should prepare an implementation report 15:47:53 Nigel: Publish the CRS, file horizontal review request issues, explain the difference between versions 15:48:16 Pierre: I can write text, and if you can file the HR reviews? 15:48:58 ... Add a target date to receive feedback. It should be a minor revision, so don't want people to worry it'll be a lot of work 15:49:15 Nigel: Did we decide to allow changes in this version? It's worth flagging to people 15:49:46 Atsushi: PLH sent email to chairs that many WGs use CRS rather than updateable Recs due to the work involved 15:50:29 Nigel: Yes, there's editorial complexity. Some think it's onerous. The level of change for us with superscript/subscript, updatable Rec would have been easier 15:50:36 ... It's a tooling issue 15:51:06 ... Easier to do that for small increments. Or maybe people need the incrementing version numbers. Would be intersting feedback. IMSC is referenced by lots of other SDOs 15:51:37 Pierre: I'll create a blurb and send to you, Nigel. Let's get it out as soon as possible 15:52:16 Subtopic: Other admin 15:52:19 Nigel: For IMSC 1.3. PR preview is fixed. there's a PR for ??, what needs to be done? 15:52:56 s/??/the w3c ns repo to add the namespace documents 15:53:24 Topic: TPAC 2025 planning 15:53:44 -> Draft schedule for TPAC 2025 https://www.w3.org/2025/06/tpac2025-schedule-20250627.html 15:54:23 Nigel: The draft schedule is broadly OK. It may not allow people interested in all media topics to be there for just the last 2 or first 2 days 15:54:41 ... Audio WG has some clashes, if that affects you, let us know 15:54:56 ... One of the Audio WG chairs is getting back to the TPAC planners 15:55:06 ... let us know if you have other concerns about the schedule 15:55:26 ... TTWG's main meetings are on the Tuesday 15:56:55 ... MEIG joint meeting on Monday, 4 sessions on Tuesday, Thursday first session is MEIG / APA / TTWG joint meeting. Media WG meets on Friday 15:57:51 Nigel: Could be a breakout session on DataCue and TextTrackCue, which is in WICG at the moment 15:58:02 Chris: We may have a call prior to TPAC to try to move it forwards too. 15:58:15 .. Depending on whether we can have a conversation between now and then, the outcome 15:58:26 .. of that may change what we do at TPAC, or we might want to leave it until TPAC to start 15:58:36 .. the conversation, then I can go back to Rob with that. 15:58:50 .. His interest in narrowly on DataCue, so if there's a broader conversation around MSE and 15:59:05 .. Timed Text Tracks and the whole integration piece then that's a TPAC thing. 15:59:13 .. We started it last year and not much has happened since then. 15:59:30 Nigel: Yes, I think they need separate sessions. 15:59:43 Chris: Yes, the DataCue is about the interface and its relationship to TextTrackCue and 15:59:56 .. Apple's proposal to introduce cue and cue-background attributes on TextTrackCue, 16:00:11 .. then there's a separate conversation about MSE handling of cues in ISOBMFF files. 16:00:19 .. Or other media formats. 16:00:32 Topic: Meeting Close 16:00:59 Nigel: Thanks all, let's adjourn, we are at time. Next meeting in 2 weeks, w3c/ttwg#311 16:02:05 .. [adjourns meeting] 16:02:08 rrsagent, make minutes 16:02:09 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/07/03-tt-minutes.html nigel 16:16:10 s/change to nested div/change to #nested-div 16:17:04 s|#38|w3c/dapt-tests#38 16:18:04 s/discussion with Simon/discussion with Simon Hailes who raised the issue 16:18:29 s/gone too var,/gone too far, 16:18:53 s/element corresponding to a text,/element corresponding to a Text, 16:19:24 s/further down, to text objects/further down, to Text objects 16:20:13 s/Horiziontal/Horizontal 16:21:21 s/The draft schedule is broadly OK/The draft schedule is broadly OK for us 16:21:59 rrsagent, make minutes 16:22:01 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/07/03-tt-minutes.html nigel 16:22:59 scribeOptions: -final -noEmbedDiagnostics 16:23:02 zakim, end meeting 16:23:02 As of this point the attendees have been Nigel, Andreas, Pierre, Atsushi, Chris_Needham 16:23:04 RRSAgent, please draft minutes v2 16:23:05 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/07/03-tt-minutes.html Zakim 16:23:11 I am happy to have been of service, nigel; please remember to excuse RRSAgent. Goodbye 16:23:12 Zakim has left #tt 16:23:18 rrsagent, excuse us 16:23:18 I see no action items