W3C

Timed Text Working Group Teleconference

18 December 2025

Attendees

Present
Andreas, Atsushi, Cyril, Gary, Nigel, Pierre
Regrets
-
Chair
Nigel
Scribe
nigel

Meeting minutes

This meeting

Nigel: Thanks all for joining the last TTWG meeting of 2025
… and in case I don't have time later, also thank you for the work you
… have all put in all this year.
… Agenda for today:
… DAPT
… DAPT and IMSC compatibility
… IMSC 1.3
… AOB about group membership news
… and that's it for today.
… Any other business or points to make sure we cover?

no other business

DAPT

CRS Publication

Nigel: We published a new CRS today!
DAPT CRS 18 December 2025
… "This Candidate Recommendation is not expected to advance to Recommendation any earlier than 15 January 2026."
… Thank you all for working on that.

DAPT issues labelled for the agenda

Nigel: I just closed w3c/dapt#307 with a comment that the CRS has been published.

MAY contain zero or one ... objects should be MUST w3c/dapt#324

github: w3c/dapt#324

Nigel: We discussed this last time, 2 views expressed.
… I don't mind either way, but would be good to get Cyril's view.

Cyril: It says MAY contain zero or one?
… It's weird to put a normative requirement with a MAY.
… You could have 2, right?

Nigel: It's sort of unclear, yes.

Andreas: As written, if something is not permitted explicitly then my understand is it is not allowed.
… So you cannot have 2 things. Otherwise you'd be allowed to put anything in because we never say
… that ...

Cyril: You're saying it's automatic that 1 is the limit because it's constrained elsewhere?
… And the sentence could be removed without harming the spec?

Andreas: No you need to say you are allowed to put one object in, but you cannot put more than 1 in,
… and also you cannot put another one in. The text with MAY is saying you can.

Cyril: Either MAY put 1 so 0 is an optional possibility, or use MUST with 0 and 1.
… But using MAY with 0 or 1 is unusual I guess.

Andreas: For me I haven't found some similar requirement with an optional field where 0 or 1 is required.
… For me it is just a typical multiplicity of 0..1 and would be fine.

Cyril: Happy to leave the text as is, the normative part is you can put 0 or 1.

Nigel: Yes.
… If we did change it to MUST I would class that as an editorial change.
… Close with no change?

Cyril: Good with me

Andreas: OK

SUMMARY: Close with no change

DAPT and IMSC compatibility (editorial)

Add section about IMSC compatibility w3c/dapt#333

github: w3c/dapt#333

Pierre: Nigel and I discussed this in a chat.
… Because IMSC prohibits use of features that are not supported,
… it wouldn't support DAPT features like audio.
… But that doesn't mean that it is impossible to build a player that would play both.

Cyril: The subset of DAPT documents that do not contain any audio could be IMSC compatible, right?

Nigel: Yes that's right
… My thinking is that this is not a problem.
… The analogy I draw is with images and text - we don't provide a mechanism in IMSC Text to
… include images. They're another representation of the text, potentially.
… And so is audio.

Nigel: In the pull request (and for IMSC too) I included a section on signaling,
… and an informative appendix on compatibility with other TTML based specifications
… and within that, one example, which is IMSC Text.
… [summarises the changes in the pull request]
… The equivalent IMSC pull request is w3c/imsc#625, again, editorial.
… Any thoughts about this.

Cyril: You're looking for review?

Nigel: Yes, the IMSC pull request was opened 2 weeks ago, the DAPT one a few days later.
… I need reviews before I can merge.
… These are editorial changes.

SUMMARY: Group to review

Add DAPT conformance signaling w3c/imsc#625

github: w3c/imsc#625

Discussed in the context of w3c/dapt#333

SUMMARY: Group to review

IMSC 1.3

CRS publication

Nigel: We published the CRS today

IMSC 1.3 CRS Snapshot 18 December 2025

Nigel: Thank you again all for your work on this.
… "This Candidate Recommendation is not expected to advance to Recommendation any earlier than 15 January 2026. "

Atsushi: Sorry for the delay in this publication

Atsushi: I need to update the formulation for streamlined publication so I will try to submit
… a PR for that tomorrow.
… The configuration needs to match the current status.

Pierre: In the spec or in the repo?

Atsushi: In the repo

Pierre: Thanks, I won't touch that.

Atsushi: I also need to check the configuration in the spec itself so I will do that.

Pierre: I was just about to modify the spec so you'll do that?

Atsushi: Just the metadata.

Pierre: So you'll change the spec to match the published CR?

Atsushi: Yes

Pierre: OK thanks I won't touch it then.

Atsushi: I also need to work on metadata [scribe missed] so let me work on that shortly.

Pierre: OK

Issues and pull requests for discussion

Nigel: No issues or pull requests are labelled as Agenda, that we haven't already discussed.

Pierre: There are a couple of issues I will open pull requests for.

issues labelled IMSC 1.3

Pierre: We should step through them and check the status, if we still want to do them, then I'll work on them.

Nigel: I see 7

Pierre: Compatibility with DAPT, you assigned yourself Nigel. Still want to work on it?

Nigel: There's a pull request open.

Pierre: ARIB liaison. It's a long standing issue. Do we know when we will hear back from ARIB on this,
… recall IVS?

Nigel: In our joint call with APA and MEIG Ohnata-san said he would send something but I haven't received
… anything yet as far as I know.
… Atsushi, have you?

Atsushi: I had some chat with him yesterday offline during Japanese member meeting,
… but for ISO10646 character class there is some need for clarification within the ISO side,
… so there was a call for a comment within Japanese ISO colleagues, so they may reply to our clarification
… questions shortly, for which ids should be included in the Japanese character class.

Pierre: The timing is important - do we have an estimate of "shortly"?

Atsushi: It should be this month.

Pierre: OK, then my recommendation is to schedule this for the Rec publication, and if we have not
… received anything within the next month we should move on.

Nigel: What does "move on" mean?

Atsushi: It's something to fix in ISO.

Pierre: I'm talking about the definition of IVS

Atsushi: That will be answered shortly.

Pierre: My definition of "move on" is remove it if we are not certain we are doing the right thing,
… and we can add the Japanese character set later on when we're more certain.

Nigel: That would be a big shame, but I understand your logic.

Pierre: I know, I hate it, and I don't know how to make it go faster.
… We could also just have a pointer to ARIB directly, since it is publicly available.
… It is not ideal, but at least helps the reader find some information, as a fallback.
… Ideally we will receive clear feedback within the next month and this will not be an issue.
… Does that make sense to you Nigel, and Gary?

Nigel: It does to me. I also don't like it but can't think of a better way.

Gary: Yeah I don't know of anything better.

Pierre: A month seems reasonable.

Nigel: Yes

Pierre: Next is 612, which I'll fix.
… Next, 605, I don't know what the implications are on the tooling.

Nigel: I would say it's not massively important, it's nice to have

Pierre: On June 22 Atsushi pointed out there's some implication because the name of the file
… is used in the URL of the ED so there would need to be a redirect so that old documents point to the new
… location, so some infrastructure work.

Nigel: I'm asking myself if it is worth the trouble.

Pierre: My answer is No!
… I think we should just remove it from 1.3 and not agonise on it.
… [removes it]
… Next is 604, order subsections alphabetically
… There's a long clause called Additional Provision, and the sections are ordered historically.

Nigel: Will it break links? I don't think so.

Pierre: I think you're correct. Maybe not all of them even have links.
… That could be an opportunity to make sure they all do.
… I'm game, it's ugly as it is.

Nigel: So proceed with that one?

Pierre: I will do that.

Nigel: thank you

Pierre: Next is 553, in the introduction. Nigel had taken that on.

Nigel: I would still like to do that, but I won't get to it until January, so it will be quite tight.

Pierre: Again this is optional, if you haven't had time we can decide not to do it.
… The next one is 524, semantic layers. That one I think we had decided ...

Nigel: For that one, I think if we merge the DAPT compatibility pull request we can point to the
… availability of DAPT metadata as a way to convey additional semantic information through the
… authoring process, and potentially also use that in a suitable player during presentation.
… However there would be no normative requirement on players to do so.

Pierre: The original comment was to specify required behaviour

Nigel: Not sure I read it that way

Pierre: That means the player has an expected behaviour to make a decision based on metadata

Nigel: I feel like a player that uses DAPT metadata to make additional presentation decisions is
… still available as a progressive enhancement.

Pierre: Then it's outside the scope of IMSC, I don't know how you'd write that in the spec.

Nigel: Two things.
… First, there's some informative text in the pull request that can partially answer this.
… Second, I think we could point to that change, assuming we make it, in this issue #524, and suggest
… to APA WG that it fulfils their request.
… My message would be that we have provided the tools and now it's up to the market to decide
… to adopt it before we standardise it.

Pierre: So we have come up with tools and if there's a desire to use them we'll do it in a future version.

Nigel: That was all of them

Pierre: But there's one missing about the superscript accessibility to match the a11y tracker issue.
… It's more general than superscript and subscript accessibility, it's that when you are rendering
… an IMSC document you want to make it accessible, and for mapping fontVariant specifically there are
… some accessibility concerns.
… I'll create a new issue.
… I'll propose a pull request to match.

Nigel: Fantastic, thank you

AOB - group membership news

Nigel: My understanding is Movielabs plans to leave W3C so Pierre will be ejected from the TTWG!
… I hope we can invite him back as an IE to help shepherd through publication of IMSC 1.3 as a Rec,
… and maybe longer too.

Nigel: We're officially out of time but if you are able to stay on, I prepared a brief section looking back
… at Pierre's time at W3C (so far!).
… The first email I could find from Pierre was from 2012, sending Regrets!

email from 22nd August 2012

Nigel: Searching, since then Pierre has sent 778 emails to W3C mailing lists, an average of about 5 per month, and not all of them were Regrets!
… Though mysteriously, on 1 Nov 2012 Pierre noted that he wasn’t present at the 2012-11-01 TTWG meeting
… because he was at TPAC! Suggests that TTWG didn't have a meeting at TPAC that year.
… What was the context at the time?
… In December 2012 Pierre set up the Timed Text Task Force under the Web and TV (interest?) group, which,
… according to the wiki page, was initially focused on:
… "Develop recommendations to facilitate the use of TTML and WebVTT content on the Web, including interoperability with other timed text formats."

Timed Text Task Force wiki page

Nigel: Not meaning to throw shade at Pierre, this problem still exists, and it's really hard to resolve.
… Then we had the member submission of CFF-TT published 7th June 2013,
… First public working draft of IMSC 1st May 2014

IMSC 1 History

Nigel: First Rec of IMSC 1 was published on 21 April 2016
… Since then 4 more versions of IMSC, 3 at Rec, and 1.3 on the way.
… And Pierre also helped as Editor of TTML1, first listed as Editor on TTML1 3rd Ed CR on 24 April 2018
… Really there’s too much history and hard work here to go into in any detail at all, but I want to thank Pierre for all of it,
… I’ve certainly appreciated all his input during the time I’ve been working in this area. It’s not always been straightforward!

Pierre: Thanks Nigel.
… I want to thank Movielabs for the support all these years.
… The work on IMSC and TTML, and also MSE and EME would not be what they are today without the support of Movielabs.
… In general it’s been a great experience.
… We want to be careful, I might be back in a month!
… It’s a great moment to note the support and effort that Movielabs has put in over the years in TTWG and elsewhere in W3C.
… I’m not disappearing, the goal is to get IMSC 1.3 to Rec.
… I plan to help with that, and you know where to reach me.
… I will remain a member of the mailing list anyway.

Andreas: Just to add I fully support what Nigel said and you should take every opportunity to thank you for this important work.
… It’s really incredible what you and Movielabs have done. Hope you are able to rejoin as an IE.

Pierre: Thank you Andreas. Anyway we talk every month or week!

Meeting close

Pierre: Wishing you all a good holiday.

Nigel: Yes, that's what comes at the end of this meeting!
… Have a good break everyone who gets one, thank you again for all your
… work in 2025, let's do more in 2026.
… [adjourns meeting]

Next meeting is 15th January

Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by scribe.perl version 248 (Mon Oct 27 20:04:16 2025 UTC).