14:58:35 RRSAgent has joined #tt 14:58:39 logging to https://www.w3.org/2025/10/09-tt-irc 14:58:39 RRSAgent, make logs Public 14:58:40 Meeting: Timed Text Working Group Teleconference 14:58:41 scribe: nigel 14:58:43 Present: Nigel 14:59:31 Chair: Nigel, Gary 14:59:36 rrsagent, make minutes 14:59:38 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/10/09-tt-minutes.html nigel 14:59:48 Agenda: https://github.com/w3c/ttwg/issues/317 14:59:54 Previous meeting: https://www.w3.org/2025/09/25-tt-minutes.html 15:01:47 cpn has joined #tt 15:01:54 scribe+ cpn 15:02:41 Present+ Astushi, Andreas, Pierre, Chris_Needham, Harold 15:02:48 Topic: This meeting 15:02:57 s/Astushi/Atsushi 15:04:16 atai has joined #tt 15:05:48 atai has joined #tt 15:05:48 cpn has joined #tt 15:05:48 github-bot has joined #tt 15:05:48 rhiaro has joined #tt 15:05:48 jcraig has joined #tt 15:06:04 Nigel: (Recaps the agenda) Anything else? 15:06:21 atsushi has joined #tt 15:07:04 atai has joined #tt 15:07:04 cpn has joined #tt 15:07:04 github-bot has joined #tt 15:07:04 rhiaro has joined #tt 15:07:04 jcraig has joined #tt 15:08:58 Topic: IMSC 1.3 15:10:04 Nigel: I think we need to cover the ja character set changes and issue 524 15:10:31 Subtopic: Improve the ja character set per ARIB feedback w3c/imsc#614 15:10:38 github: https://github.com/w3c/imsc/pull/614 15:10:42 Pierre: [shares screen] 15:11:17 .. Liaison from ARIB raises the question at hand. 15:11:28 .. ARIB kindly suggested character set changes for ja, which is great. 15:11:46 .. There's a note about Ideographic Variation Selector. 15:11:53 .. However that is not a defined term. 15:12:01 .. Atsushi and I have been discussing how to interpret it. 15:12:18 .. We need to figure out what that means, so we don't write something different from 15:12:22 .. what they intend. 15:12:58 .. From Atsushi's last comment I think "ideographic variation sequence"? 15:14:26 Atsushi: CJK compatibility ideographs are there for compatibility. 15:14:38 .. There can be mismapping between character set and what Unicode says. 15:14:59 .. For backward compatibility between local character set and unicode some characters 15:15:14 .. have both mappings within [scribe missed]. 15:15:25 .. I believe that is not related to variation sequence or anything else. 15:15:41 .. If someone wants to say about the variation selector usually we say 15:15:54 .. "ideographic variation selector" or "ideographic variation sequence" 15:16:31 .. so they should mean the same as each other. They are terms used interchangeably. 15:17:08 .. I believe what the point means is that the ideographic variation sequences shall be used. 15:17:27 Pierre: That's not part of main Unicode, it's part of UCS-37. Does ARIB reference UCS-37? 15:17:59 Atsushi: Variation selector itself is in ISO10646 15:18:15 Pierre: That's a much broader thing though, includes emoji selectors which I think we don't want. 15:18:38 Atsushi: shows [Ideographic variation sequence] in Unicode 17.0.0 15:18:46 Pierre: You have to know how to represent it. 15:19:05 Atsushi: Representation is described in a separate database, not in ISO10646. 15:19:21 Pierre: Before saying you must or should support this I want to know absolutely certainly that 15:19:29 .. is what ARIB has in mind. Can we get a sample? 15:19:39 .. I don't want to suggest a mandatory thing that's wrong or won't be used. 15:20:01 Atsushi: I wonder if I can ask a "side" way from colleagues in NHK. 15:20:17 Pierre: Please ask informally! I'm interested as an Editor in knowing which part of Unicode 15:20:23 .. this "SHALL" exactly means. 15:20:38 .. Just to clarify the terminology that doesn't exactly match the spec. 15:20:56 Atsushi: Is it okay to reply to the liaison email by myself? 15:21:11 Nigel: Yes I think that would be good. I'd suggest if you can write informally in response 15:21:27 .. that we noticed this small difference in language and want to make sure that we understand 15:21:43 .. correctly and ask for guidance or even sample data then that would help clear this up for us. 15:22:03 .. I don't want to go around a whole formal liaison/response loop which will take a long time. 15:23:07 Pierre: [drafts the essential request in the GitHub issue] 15:23:52 SUMMARY: @himorin to ask informally for clarification as per the above discussion. 15:25:56 Subtopic: APA WG comment: semantic layers w3c/imsc#524 15:26:02 github: https://github.com/w3c/imsc/issues/524 15:26:45 Nigel: We discussed this back in February and wanted more from APA 15:26:58 Atushi: I believe APA has closed on the IMSC 1.3 review 15:27:04 s/Atushi/Atsushi 15:28:16 .. Wasn't there an accessibility review? 15:28:31 Nigel: I don't think I've seen one, or they've closed it but there's an ongoing discussion. 15:28:44 -> https://github.com/w3c/a11y-tracking/issues/252 a11y tracking issue for IMSC 15:29:08 Atsushi: We need traction from APA on these issues, I'm not sure if there is discussion or not. 15:30:45 .. Maybe I need to make it clear to APA that we're requesting transition to CRS. 15:31:18 Nigel: Would you like to check this offline and get back to us? 15:31:29 Atsushi: Sorry, let me think about it a bit more. 15:32:00 .. We could ask for the first CRS but I don't believe we can close everything as review completed. 15:32:10 Nigel: That's what we need to do, get to a point where we can publish CRS. 15:32:23 Pierre: What's the hold up? 15:32:58 https://github.com/w3c/a11y-request/issues/116#issuecomment-3298869859 15:33:00 Atsushi: We need to request a review for CRS but we asked for an early WD review. 15:33:14 > As we see a FPWD Status, we have no objection, but would like to return to the question of what might be said regarding super/subscript before this profile is finalized. 15:33:15 Pierre: We have a review. 15:33:57 Pierre: They closed their horizontal review 3 weeks ago and their only comment is editorial. 15:34:30 Atsushi: There is a different criteria for each stage. Usually we discuss comments on specifications 15:35:08 .. in early phases but [scribe missed] 15:35:18 Nigel: I'm really confused about this, I thought it was clear what we wanted. 15:35:58 Present+ Cyril 15:37:09 Pierre: I think we need to determine today if we need further review. 15:37:22 .. My understanding is we asked for HR and we got HR. Why do we need to do more? 15:37:44 .. Atsushi, this is super urgent, do we need to do more in the Process or are we good to go? 15:38:01 Atsushi: Let me comment on the a11y review request even though it is closed, to state that 15:38:15 .. this request was not an early draft review but a transition to CRS review. 15:38:30 Pierre: Would you mind doing this today so we can get clarity on this? 15:38:36 Atushi: I'm writing it now. 15:39:44 SUMMARY: Discussion concerned process not this issue specifically. 15:39:48 Topic: DAPT 15:41:13 Subtopic: Include registry data from external files w3c/dapt#326 15:41:25 github: https://github.com/w3c/dapt/pull/326 15:42:05 Nigel: I was implementing validation code and noticed that the registry data was only in HTML 15:42:15 .. in the spec, not useful for using programmatically elsewhere. 15:45:16 .. [shows the pull request data] 15:45:23 .. Any issues with this? 15:45:29 .. Different format for example? 15:45:46 Cyril: Thank you for this, it's good to isolate the data from the spec HTML 15:46:17 .. Regarding the format, GitHub renders CSV as a table, and makes it easy to edit. 15:46:52 Nigel: Interesting, I haven't thought about CSV. 15:47:04 Cyril: It's good as it is, but it would be easier to prepare pull requests if you can 15:47:16 .. see the proposed changes formatted nicely in GitHub. It's minor. 15:47:25 .. It's already great to separate the registry from the main spec. 15:48:08 Nigel: In the spirit of agility and iteration we could merge this now and change it in the future 15:48:10 .. if we need to. 15:48:14 Cyril: I like that idea. 15:48:51 Nigel: Thank you, any other points? 15:49:30 Atsushi: I somehow wonder about these functions and whether a single JSON file will be dynamically loaded two times. 15:49:45 .. Also if we want to include the registry table we may want to include the caption within the JSON 15:50:03 .. data. For content using table might it be better to be generic from the JSON file? 15:50:21 .. I'm actually not totally sure about this JSON file being used, but having some caption or title 15:50:41 .. could have a benefit for the users of the JSON file by itself. 15:51:27 Nigel: That is interesting. At the moment the caption text includes links to other places in the 15:51:35 .. specification, and they would not make sense in isolation. 15:52:17 .. I'm not worried about loading the data twice. Even if the browser doesn't cache it, the files 15:52:31 .. are small, and when we publish to TR the scripts are run in advance to produce the final 15:52:36 .. HTML so it's not an issue on /TR. 15:53:27 SUMMARY: Review to continue, early merge okay, further comments or suggestions welcome 15:53:48 Subtopic: Tests don't always set daptm:represents w3c/dapt-tests#41 15:53:56 github: https://github.com/w3c/dapt-tests/issues/41 15:54:47 Nigel: I found a load of valid tests that are not valid because of constraints around daptm:represents 15:55:12 .. and it's also an issue with invalid files where you might get them showing as invalid for the wrong reason. 15:55:23 .. So firstly I wanted to warn everyone, in case you're using these tests, 15:55:32 .. and secondly, I'll propose a fix. 15:55:47 SUMMARY: @nigelmegitt to propose a fix for the affected tests 15:56:30 Topic: TPAC 2025 Planning 15:56:46 Nigel: From last meeting Gary had some actions to do offline, I don't think I've seen that yet. 15:58:05 .. We really need to know if people have timing constraints, especially if not attending in person, 15:58:14 .. for when particular topics get discussed. 15:58:25 .. If you are attending, please add yourself to the wiki page. 15:58:43 .. We'll have to move to offline discussion of planning because the next call on 23 October 15:59:14 .. has no Chair available at the moment. If anyone wants to Chair please let us know. 15:59:19 .. Otherwise we'll cancel. 16:00:04 .. I also propose that we don't hold a meeting the week after TPAC, to allow people to 16:00:12 .. recover and get on with the other things they need to do. Good idea? 16:00:15 Cyril: Yes, agree. 16:04:40 Topic: Meeting close 16:05:36 Nigel: Thanks everyone. Looks like our next meeting might be at TPAC, to be confirmed. 16:05:40 .. [adjourns meeting] 16:05:44 rrsagent. make minutes 16:11:15 s/rrsagent. make minutes// 16:11:19 rrsagent, make minutes 16:11:20 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/10/09-tt-minutes.html nigel 16:11:38 Chair: Nigel 16:11:39 Regrets: Gary 16:14:43 rrsagent, make minutes 16:14:45 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/10/09-tt-minutes.html nigel 16:15:08 scribeOptions: -final -noEmbedDiagnostic 16:15:17 zakim, end meeting 16:15:17 As of this point the attendees have been Nigel, Astushi, Andreas, Pierre, Chris_Needham, Harold, Cyril 16:15:19 RRSAgent, please draft minutes v2 16:15:20 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/10/09-tt-minutes.html Zakim 16:15:27 I am happy to have been of service, nigel; please remember to excuse RRSAgent. Goodbye 16:15:27 Zakim has left #tt 16:15:41 rrsagent, excuse us 16:15:41 I see no action items