16:00:40 RRSAgent has joined #tt 16:00:45 logging to https://www.w3.org/2026/02/26-tt-irc 16:00:45 RRSAgent, make logs Public 16:00:46 Meeting: Timed Text Working Group Teleconference 16:00:57 Agenda: https://github.com/w3c/ttwg/issues/328 16:00:59 scribe: nigel 16:01:02 Present: Nigel 16:01:12 Chair: Nigel 16:01:12 Regrets: Andreas, Gary 16:01:19 Previous meeting: https://www.w3.org/2026/02/12-tt-minutes.html 16:02:20 Present+ Pierre 16:03:22 Present+ Cyril 16:03:32 Topic: This meeting 16:04:45 Nigel: We have a bit on DAPT - just the implementation report. 16:05:36 .. and on IMSC we just need to cover the ja character set 16:05:48 Pierre: Agree, we need to figure that out. 16:06:13 Nigel: In AOB we have meeting times in March when its DST in north America, but not in Europe. 16:06:23 .. Anything else for the agenda, or to make sure we cover? 16:06:45 no other business 16:06:51 Present+ Atsushi 16:07:53 Topic: Improve the ja character set per ARIB feedback w3c/imsc#614 16:08:00 github: https://github.com/w3c/imsc/pull/614 16:08:43 Nigel: We had some good input that we processed last meeting. What's the status? 16:10:42 Pierre: [shares screen showing preview of the pull request] 16:11:02 .. Atsushi, what do you suggest? 16:11:26 Atsushi: ARIB TR document is some sort of operational manual which records the current situation. 16:11:30 .. It is not normative. 16:11:45 .. It could be changed. 16:11:54 Pierre: Remove the TR-B39 sequence? 16:12:16 Atsushi: Maybe just note that these are operationally used but not normative. 16:12:42 Pierre: suggests removing the explicit list and just referencing TR-B39 16:13:19 Atsushi: the note also could apply to CJK ideographic characters 16:13:38 Pierre: Make the reference to the ARIB TR a note? 16:14:03 Atsushi: Yes something like that, or suggest that IVS is used for CJK and operationally used IVSes are 16:14:22 .. used in ARIB. 16:14:36 Pierre: What's the down side of referencing ARIB-TR-B39? 16:14:52 Atsushi: It's a link from normative text to a non-normative document. 16:15:07 Pierre: The entire annex is just a SHOULD not a SHALL. 16:15:13 Atsushi: SHOULD is normative too. 16:15:21 Pierre: It's useful though. 16:15:47 Atsushi: Yes, useful but the normative definition in ARIB STD is that IVS may be used, but operationally 16:15:58 .. characters listed in ARIB TR are the ones currently used. 16:16:01 Pierre: Exactly. 16:16:22 Atsushi: That's why I'm afraid that the TR definition may be changed, so I want to turn that part into a non-normative note. 16:17:24 Pierre: Sure, [makes edit that the IVS is a Note. 16:17:29 s/e./e.] 16:17:44 Pierre: Nigel, are you happy with this? 16:18:09 Nigel: Yes. Are there any other issues related to the ARIB ja character set that we should be covering off here? 16:18:36 Pierre: [checks] I think so 16:18:39 Atsushi: Yes 16:18:47 Nigel: Great, let's go for it then. 16:19:01 Pierre: [pushes the change] 16:21:41 Nigel: The note about 10646 and Unicode - why is that in the ja section? Oh, because it's only referenced in the ja character set 16:21:47 Pierre: That's right 16:22:06 Atsushi: There are corrections that are only in the ISO spec. 16:22:44 .. I approved the PR 16:22:48 Nigel: I approved it too 16:22:57 Pierre: I have to fix the merge conflicts then I'll merge the PR. 16:23:05 SUMMARY: PR to be merged. 16:23:40 Topic: IMSC 1.3 next steps 16:23:56 Nigel: I think there's nothing more to do? 16:23:59 Pierre: Yes I think we're done 16:24:29 Nigel: So the Implementation Report is empty as expected. 16:24:48 .. I can't recall when the exclusion period ends. 16:25:22 https://www.w3.org/guide/transitions/milestones.html?cr=2025-12-16 16:26:00 Atsushi: The exclusion period has ended. We need an implementation report and consensus for advancing, 16:26:05 .. and AC review. 16:26:37 -> https://www.w3.org/wiki/TimedText/IMSC1_3_Implementation_Report IMSC 1.3 Implementation Report 16:27:15 Nigel: The next step is for me to issue a call for consensus to request transition to Rec on this basis, 16:27:22 .. when the last pull request has been merged. 16:28:17 Atsushi: If we can issue a CfC within this week and have a resolution in two weeks that could help me 16:28:28 .. because I may possibly be offline for a while in the later half of March. 16:28:41 Nigel: OK I'll aim to do that. 16:30:06 Pierre: PR Preview just started to work! 16:30:18 Nigel: Amazing, we can close off that other issue then. 16:30:42 Pierre: What do you need from me? 16:30:52 Nigel: I don't think anything - do we need to prep a Rec version? 16:31:25 Atsushi: I believe you can use the /TR version for the CfC 16:31:29 Nigel: That's what I expect. 16:31:40 Topic: DAPT Implementation Report 16:32:14 -> https://www.w3.org/wiki/TimedText/DAPT_Implementation_Report DAPT Implementation Report 16:33:12 Cyril: We've now implemented #daptOriginTimecode 16:33:17 Nigel: That's great. 16:33:29 .. I've updated the IR with the new BBC validator link 16:34:24 Nigel: For the #daptOriginTimecode were you able to validate it? 16:34:33 Cyril: Not yet - does your validator check it? 16:34:35 Nigel: Yes it does 16:34:44 Cyril: OK I can give it a try or you can 16:36:36 Nigel: From the Charter, there is some text we can lean on. 16:36:43 -> https://www.w3.org/2025/06/timed-text-wg-charter.html#success-criteria Charter Success Criteria 16:37:03 .. I'm proposing to bring some of that wording into the IR as explanation, and separately list the 16:37:17 .. different kinds of implementation that we have examples for. 16:37:32 .. Hopefully that allows us to tell the story a bit more clearly. 16:37:47 .. Does that makes sense? 16:37:50 Cyril: Sure, yes. 16:39:44 Nigel: Anything else for us to cover on DAPT? 16:39:59 Cyril: How are you thinking about resolving the last features that are not yet interoperable? 16:40:20 Nigel: What are they? 16:40:38 Cyril: The at risk features where we wanted implementation feedback 16:40:43 Nigel: Those are two different things. 16:41:07 .. The last non-interop feature in the IR is #xmlLang-audio-nonMatching which is fairly minor. 16:41:24 .. We either wait for an implementation that supports it, 16:42:05 .. or we explain how there's no behaviour defined except for a validator, and propose advancing with an exception based on the scale of the issue. 16:42:09 .. (which is tiny) 16:42:33 .. For the at-risk features, that's different. Ideally I would like to have more input. 16:44:53 .. We could try to choose a minimum viable set and add in extra options if people ask for them. 16:45:09 .. Or we could include all the options and put a note on saying that we may prune some of them in future 16:45:18 .. versions based on usage and practice. 16:45:42 .. I think as a rule choosing the minimum set and adding more later is better. 16:45:52 Cyril: I agree, it minimises the tests and implementation tasks too. 16:46:17 Nigel: OK the action is on me to go to AD providers and double check with them what their 16:46:26 .. preference is for including or referencing audio recordings. 16:46:38 Cyril: We could think also about workflows. 16:46:50 .. If someone delivers to you a script and audio assets, how would that work? 16:46:58 .. Do you have a way to receive multiple linked assets somehow? 16:47:03 Nigel: Good question 16:47:22 Cyril: Pierre being here reminds me of IMF where there's a manifest and a set of assets. 16:47:59 .. You could supply a zip of all the assets for example, 16:48:07 .. or include all the audio base64 encoded. 16:48:29 .. Maybe the solution is to provide both and then see what companies want to receive and what vendors support. 16:49:05 Nigel: That's a good thought process to go through. I will check in with my colleagues in media supply as well, 16:49:11 .. because they likely have preferences here. 16:49:22 .. It is true that managing single files is easier if possible. 16:49:42 .. But then, how can you validate that a zip includes all the audio files referenced by the DAPT, say? 16:49:53 .. Maybe that's another kind of validatoin. 16:49:59 s/oin/ion 16:50:21 Cyril: Right, and if you receive a zip and need to store it in the asset management system, that's one thing. 16:50:33 .. But if you have references you have the problem of what they are relative to, what URL to put. 16:50:45 .. If you put it in a zip file it can be relative to the path of the document. 16:51:02 .. But if it gets stored in the MAM you have to replace the URL with something, an identifier or something 16:51:06 .. like a proprietary URL. 16:51:17 Nigel: Yes that could be a problem. 16:51:35 Cyril: Do we care about playback of these files or just transmission between a creator and a receiver? 16:51:48 .. One of the use cases is sending to a client device for local mixing. 16:52:02 .. The technical requirements for sending the audio may be different than from sending it to a platform. 16:52:08 Nigel: Yes, it may, that's right. 16:52:20 .. There are a few approaches. 16:52:28 .. One is to use relative URLs 16:52:53 .. Another is to create a single audio track and use range identifiers 16:53:06 .. like clipBegin and clipEnd which are already available. 16:53:17 Cyril: or byte ranges 16:53:43 .. It seems to me that it's hard for us to pick A or B, we have to support both because different people will 16:53:47 .. have different ways of doing things. 16:56:10 Nigel: [iterates through the at risk issues] 16:56:29 .. For the values of encoding, I think we can just choose one - presumably base64 would be the one. 16:56:37 Cyril: Yes it is the most deployed one. 16:57:01 Nigel: For the length attribute on data we can simply keep it because it's useful 16:57:50 Cyril: for the referencing of resources, we could take the approach of requiring but restricting 16:58:00 .. the number to 1 for now, with the option to add more later. 16:58:04 Nigel: That would work, yes. 16:58:20 .. Would work for both embedded and external 16:59:41 .. Or we could prohibit the src attribute and allow any number of elements and leave it to 16:59:50 .. implementations how to deal with them. 17:00:30 Topic: March meeting times 17:00:40 Nigel: The proposal is to keep the current UTC time for our two meetings in March, 17:00:53 .. so that this call is an hour later in local time in north America. 17:01:04 Cyril: Sure that works. 17:01:08 Nigel: OK let's do that, it keeps things the same everywhere else. 17:01:12 Topic: Meeting close 17:01:26 Nigel: Thanks all, we're at time, let's adjourn. 17:01:49 -> https://github.com/w3c/ttwg/issues/329 Next meeting is 2026-03-12 1600 UTC 17:01:55 .. [adjourns meeting] 17:02:00 rrsagent, make minutes 17:02:02 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2026/02/26-tt-minutes.html nigel 17:04:22 s/[checks] I think so/[checks] I don't think so 17:08:21 rrsagent, make minutes 17:08:22 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2026/02/26-tt-minutes.html nigel 17:08:54 scribeOptions: -final -noEmbedDiagnostics 17:08:58 zakim, end meeting 17:08:58 As of this point the attendees have been Nigel, Pierre, Cyril, Atsushi 17:08:59 RRSAgent, please draft minutes v2 17:09:00 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2026/02/26-tt-minutes.html Zakim 17:09:06 I am happy to have been of service, nigel; please remember to excuse RRSAgent. Goodbye 17:09:08 Zakim has left #tt 17:09:29 rrsagent, excuse us 17:09:29 I see no action items