15:58:54 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #tt
15:58:58 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2026/03/12-tt-irc
15:58:58 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
15:58:59 <Zakim> Meeting: Timed Text Working Group Teleconference
15:58:59 <nigel> Agenda: https://github.com/w3c/ttwg/issues/329
15:59:02 <nigel> scribe: nigel
15:59:05 <nigel> Present+ Nigel
15:59:14 <nigel> Previous meeting: https://www.w3.org/2026/02/26-tt-minutes.html
16:00:02 <nigel> Regrets: Chris_Needham
16:00:59 <nigel> Present+ Andreas, Atsushi
16:04:24 <nigel> Topic: This meeting
16:04:39 <nigel> Nigel: Agenda today quite full.
16:04:47 <nigel> .. DAPT Implementation Report,
16:04:52 <nigel> .. IMSC 1.3
16:04:53 <atai> atai has joined #tt
16:04:59 <nigel> .. WebVTT
16:05:15 <nigel> .. Any other business?
16:05:32 <nigel> no other business
16:06:17 <nigel> Topic: IMSC 1.3
16:06:36 <nigel> Nigel: There's a CfC as discussed last week.
16:06:54 <nigel> -> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tt/2026Feb/0020.html CfC email to public-tt, 2026-02-27
16:07:00 <nigel> Nigel: This ends tomorrow.
16:07:07 <nigel> Present+ Gary
16:07:11 <nigel> Chair: Nigel, Gary
16:07:32 <nigel> Subtopic: Namespace document
16:07:55 <nigel> -> https://github.com/w3c/imsc/pull/639 Add IMSC Text Profile 1.3 namespace document
16:08:04 <nigel> Nigel: I see that Pierre just merged the pull request, thank you.
16:08:29 <nigel> .. Next step is to submit to the namespace repo, I'm not sure how to do that.
16:08:45 <nigel> Atsushi: It's to open a PR on the ns repository.
16:08:54 <nigel> .. Filenames or some other details might need to be adjusted.
16:09:05 <nigel> .. I need to submit the pull request to w3c/ns repository, I believe.
16:09:08 <nigel> .. Let me take care of that.
16:09:20 <nigel> Nigel: Thank you. Do you want a GitHub issue to track that?
16:09:26 <nigel> Atsushi: Yes please, so I don't forget.
16:09:45 <nigel> .. There may be others for other specs in TTWG so I might need to add something there.
16:09:56 <nigel> Nigel: I will do that after this call
16:10:10 <nigel> Subtopic: imsc-tests fontVariant=sub|sup
16:11:02 <nigel> Nigel: I noticed when reviewing my own CfC that the TTML2 test suite has some
16:11:13 <nigel> .. tests for tts:fontVariant but not for the sub or sup values.
16:11:29 <nigel> .. So even though formally for the Implementation Report we do not need implementations that
16:11:45 <nigel> .. pass such tests, it seems like good practice to have them.
16:12:02 <nigel> -> https://github.com/w3c/imsc-tests/pull/112 Add IMSC Test Profile 1.3 tests
16:12:23 <nigel> Nigel: I think this looks good, would be good for others to review too if they wish.
16:12:40 <nigel> .. My question here is if we should add an informative section to the Implementation Report
16:12:59 <nigel> .. saying "we don't need this, but useful information is that this test exists",
16:13:05 <nigel> .. and pointing to implementations that pass it.
16:13:39 <nigel> Pierre: imscJS support for subscript and superscript was added, which was used to generate the reference render
16:13:41 <nigel> .. in the test suite.
16:13:47 <nigel> .. I've also implemented it in the ttconv data model.
16:14:20 <nigel> Nigel: Since this isn't a formal requirement I'm not worried about the number of independent implementations
16:14:49 <nigel> Pierre: There's a catch-22 though - I want to wait until Rec before merging the functionality into imscJS,
16:15:03 <nigel> .. so it's only in a branch. Can I point to that?
16:15:16 <nigel> Nigel: Yes that's fine, it's still an implementation even if it's only on a branch.
16:15:36 <nigel> Pierre: Other than that happy for it to be added to the Implementation Report.
16:15:40 <nigel> .. I can do it now in fact.
16:15:45 <nigel> Nigel: Great, thank you.
16:16:31 <nigel> Subtopic: Issues and pull requests for discussion
16:16:44 <nigel> Nigel: Nothing more to discuss here that I can see.
16:17:22 <nigel> .. I plan to respond myself to the CfC, positively.
16:17:31 <nigel> .. Please others do so too.
16:17:38 <nigel> Pierre: Thanks for the reminder. Just need to reply to public-tt?
16:17:54 <nigel> Nigel: Yes, that works, or direct to me works too.
16:18:01 <nigel> Pierre: I just did it.
16:18:08 <nigel> Nigel: Any queries on this, please raise them now
16:18:45 <nigel> Topic: DAPT
16:19:03 <nigel> Subtopic: Implementation Report
16:19:08 <nigel> -> https://www.w3.org/wiki/TimedText/DAPT_Implementation_Report DAPT Implementation Report
16:20:14 <nigel> Nigel: The IR has changed quite a bit recently.
16:20:56 <nigel> .. You might remember discussions about the Charter text, which is relevant for DAPT.
16:21:44 <nigel> .. [describes updates]
16:24:25 <nigel> .. Regarding at-risk features to do with audio resource embedding or referencing,
16:24:34 <nigel> .. I've discussed this with technical architects in BBC and
16:24:47 <nigel> .. the favoured approach is to maintain external audio resources,
16:25:03 <nigel> .. which then opens up an interesting question about bundling together a DAPT docuemnt
16:25:10 <nigel> .. and its associated audio resources.
16:25:44 <nigel> .. I'd be interested in anyone's experiences doing similar resource bundling, or if there are other
16:25:53 <nigel> .. specifications we should look at. I'm aware of IMF.
16:26:15 <nigel> Gary: You could base64 encode and use a data URL
16:26:21 <nigel> Nigel: I'm not sure that's an improvement!
16:26:36 <nigel> Gary: It's an option
16:26:49 <nigel> Nigel: There are already embedded audio features in DAPT so that's not needed,
16:26:57 <nigel> .. but the preference seems to be not to do that.
16:27:19 <nigel> .. There are schemes with tar files or zip files and hashes and that kind of thing.
16:27:31 <nigel> .. I don't know if W3C specifies any like that already
16:27:50 <nigel> .. I also don't know that we need to specify it here at all, either.
16:28:03 <nigel> .. It could well be in the application space to define downstream.
16:28:20 <nigel> Gary: That definitely seems like a problem this spec doesn't need to solve right now.
16:28:24 <nigel> Nigel: +1
16:28:54 <nigel> Nigel: Any questions?
16:28:57 <nigel> no questions
16:29:12 <nigel> s/updates]/updates, shares browser screen showing the updated IR]
16:29:29 <nigel> Topic: WebVTT
16:29:47 <nigel> Subtopic: Transition ownership to TTWG (no longer TTCG)?
16:31:23 <nigel> Atsushi: Background is that recently the W3C Process developed in a formal way so that there
16:31:31 <nigel> .. is a clear boundary between CG and WG and their deliverables.
16:31:55 <nigel> .. Some discussion like draft WG deliverables could be listed and provided in w3.org URI space
16:32:17 <nigel> .. instead of github.io so these kind of options are now in the Process and Guide.
16:32:33 <nigel> .. Strong recommendation that for deliverables there is a distinction between CG and WG.
16:32:39 <nigel> .. Better to reduce joint deliverables.
16:32:55 <nigel> .. Joint between CGs or between WGs should be fine but across the boundary is tricky now.
16:33:40 <nigel> .. Also as TTWG published WebVTT as CRS in 2010s, the WG needs to maintain the CR stage documents -
16:34:02 <nigel> .. it is recommended to update snapshots in the 6-12 month period, so there is now pressure on the WG.
16:34:13 <nigel> .. Following that and general discussion about closing CGs in 2-3 years.
16:34:27 <nigel> .. So I would want to ask about the current status of the CG and what the Editors want to do
16:34:41 <nigel> .. on this front including maintaining the spec being joint with the CG or closing the CG or something else.
16:34:54 <nigel> .. I would want to hear some update from Editors.
16:35:02 <nigel> Gary: Two questions here:
16:35:12 <nigel> .. 1. Transferring ownership to be solely under the TTWG
16:35:22 <nigel> .. 2. Should the TTCG be closed
16:35:35 <atai> q+
16:35:40 <nigel> Atsushi: Yes, of course I understand that closing the CG should be their decision.
16:35:43 <nigel> ack atai
16:35:55 <nigel> Andreas: I haven't followed this in the last years but how active is the CG?
16:35:58 <nigel> Gary: It's not
16:36:03 <nigel> Andreas: That's what I expected
16:36:21 <nigel> Gary: When Atsushi sent an email I think almost 2 years ago to the mailing list there were some questions
16:36:29 <nigel> .. around that.
16:36:46 <nigel> .. Silvia asked about the document about 608/708 to WebVTT conversion, what will happen to that document
16:36:52 <nigel> .. if the CG closes?
16:37:09 <nigel> .. I know we discussed the WG taking it over but we haven't had the time or energy for that.
16:37:15 <nigel> .. It could still be nice but I think it's a long term process.
16:37:37 <nigel> .. Another question: If there is work happening in CCSubs would it makes sense for folk outside W3C to
16:37:44 <nigel> .. provide feedback through the CG.
16:37:50 <pal> pal has joined #tt
16:37:59 <pal> q+
16:37:59 <nigel> .. There hasn't really been much activity since then.
16:38:06 <nigel> ack pal
16:42:15 <atai> q+
16:42:33 <atsushi-bot-no-user> q+ for external feedback could be provided directly into repository, or if there is solid group/community we could have liaison?
16:42:46 <nigel> Off-minutes conversation about status of resourcing for WebVTT development work, and ongoing Interop work
16:42:58 <gkatsev_cloud> q?
16:43:03 <nigel> ack atai
16:43:24 <nigel> Andreas: You raised two questions about the consequences of closing the CG,
16:43:41 <nigel> .. one about the conversion document, the other about contributions and comments.
16:43:55 <nigel> .. Is it possible for a CG document to stay online when the CG closes?
16:44:12 <nigel> .. If people want to submit comments to WebVTT couldn't they go through the public-tt reflector?
16:44:45 <nigel> Atsushi: If there are any other documents in the CG then TTWG could take them as non-normative
16:45:05 <nigel> .. deliverables like a WG Note or Draft Note, if co-chairs and the WG agrees. TTWG could take everything
16:45:08 <nigel> .. to maintain continuity.
16:45:29 <nigel> .. For the second question, comments to the WebVTT spec - all work is open in GitHub.
16:45:45 <nigel> .. We have a public mailing list that anyone can post to, as well as filing a GitHub issue.
16:45:45 <gkatsev_cloud> -> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/text-tracks/raw-file/default/608toVTT/608toVTT.html 608/708 to webvtt conversion doc
16:46:03 <nigel> .. Of course commits to spec text will raise IPR issues but there is an external agreement to integrate
16:46:07 <nigel> .. updates from external parties.
16:46:33 <nigel> .. Also if there is an external group, such as in a liaison, then I believe we can have a relationship between
16:46:54 <nigel> .. groups for closed communications including liaison letters to request reviews or get comments.
16:47:03 <nigel> .. (when we have a new stage of maturity)
16:47:19 <nigel> Andreas: Thank you. To the first point, does that mean it is not possible to maintain a CG document
16:47:29 <nigel> .. even if it is not taken by any other W3C Group?
16:47:44 <nigel> Atsushi: There is no formal place for CGs to publish anything.
16:48:20 <atai> q+
16:48:21 <nigel> .. All CG documents, under the current Process, have no official W3C status.
16:48:23 <gkatsev_cloud> q+
16:49:08 <nigel> .. But there is another GitHub organisation to cover every CG, w3c-cg or something like that.
16:49:12 <gkatsev_cloud> https://github.com/w3c-cg
16:49:30 <nigel> .. Any CG could have a repository there as well as the CG itself has no strong process to suspend.
16:49:42 <nigel> .. If someone is keen to work as a CG then the group could exist.
16:49:59 <nigel> .. You may notice some pros and cons like inactive CG will not be closed anymore.
16:50:18 <nigel> .. There's a new process where if there's no activity over 6 months they will be asked if they want to be closed.
16:50:36 <gkatsev_cloud> q?
16:50:37 <nigel> .. There is no solid rule for closing a CG, only for opening one. Everything is fuzzy, so you may continue.
16:50:41 <nigel> ack atai
16:50:48 <gkatsev_cloud> ack atsushi
16:50:48 <Zakim> atsushi-bot-no-user, you wanted to discuss external feedback could be provided directly into repository, or if there is solid group/community we could have liaison?
16:50:50 <gkatsev_cloud> q?
16:50:58 <nigel> Andreas: My assumption would be that even if the CG is closed there would still be a home.
16:51:15 <nigel> .. I didn't check the license agreement but possibly it is okay for someone to take over the draft and
16:51:21 <nigel> .. continue working on it outside of W3C.
16:51:57 <nigel> Atsushi: I may need to check - in any case TTWG has an "other deliverables" section for maintaining
16:52:10 <nigel> .. non Rec track documents, so any other document could be taken into TTWG and maintained.
16:52:35 <nigel> Gary: I looked up the URL of that document and its on a previously used CVS, mercurial,
16:52:52 <pal> q+
16:52:54 <nigel> .. so they didn't close that so the links would still work. The URL will work for the foreseeable future.
16:53:06 <nigel> .. It might make sense to move it to that CG org on GitHub.
16:53:14 <nigel> .. Or published as-is as a WG Note.
16:53:30 <nigel> .. The copyright is with the contributors now and it is under the W3C Contributor License agreement.
16:53:39 <gkatsev_cloud> ack gkatsev
16:53:55 <nigel> Atsushi: To be honest my personal opinion is there should be some way to host within TTWG or even
16:54:14 <nigel> .. someone within TTWG could host the Text Track Cue community group to contribute something.
16:54:17 <nigel> .. There should be something.
16:54:27 <nigel> .. For WebVTT specifically I would want to have some progress.
16:54:33 <gkatsev_cloud> q+
16:54:58 <gkatsev_cloud> ack pal
16:55:22 <nigel> Pierre: A key proponent and stakeholder of WebVTT is Apple, and their input would be really
16:55:28 <nigel> .. useful to this discussion as members of TTWG.
16:55:43 <nigel> .. I suggest we try to follow up with Apple offline, and I'm happy to be part of those discussions
16:55:58 <nigel> .. to figure out what the plan is. I can't speak on behalf of CCSubs, but if we needed a place to
16:56:09 <nigel> .. put a document and talk about it once in a while I'm sure we can make that happen.
16:56:29 <nigel> .. In terms of the CG and TTWG specifically it would be good to understand Apple's plans.
16:56:45 <nigel> Gary: Even if the CG is closed I can't imagine it couldn't be reopened later.
16:56:57 <nigel> Pierre: It depends on how much work is needed on WebVTT, I don't have a handle on that.
16:57:11 <nigel> Gary: I can't speak for Apple but I imagine they wouldn't be too worried about the CG.
16:57:30 <nigel> .. In terms of the spec itself it sounds like it could be transitioned to be solely owned by the WG and it
16:57:40 <nigel> .. would be good to see if Apple has any thoughts on that.
16:57:57 <nigel> q?
16:58:10 <nigel> .. I'll follow up with Apple and Nigel and get their thoughts on it.
16:58:31 <nigel> Atsushi: To be honest our WG has several related CGs, like ADCG and Text Track Cue CG, but every time
16:58:46 <nigel> .. I get pinged about if ADCG is active I answer "please don't close it".
16:58:48 <nigel> Nigel: Thank you!
16:58:58 <nigel> .. As Chair of that group, I appreciate it.
16:59:16 <nigel> Atsushi: Someone needs to manage CGs because if noone manages anything then they exist but there's
16:59:18 <nigel> .. nothing inside.
16:59:30 <nigel> Gary: I think the bulk of the work related to WebVTT has been happening in the WG.
16:59:33 <nigel> q?
16:59:46 <gkatsev_cloud> ack gkatsev
17:00:15 <nigel> Atsushi: If there are active participants in the CG then there is no need to close it.
17:00:29 <nigel> .. Someone should take care of the CG while it exists though.
17:00:51 <nigel> .. For TTWG's point of view, I want to make clear the status of WebVTT spec.
17:01:10 <nigel> .. If it is handled by TTWG then WG needs to publish a CR Snapshot in the near future.
17:01:24 <nigel> Subtopic: Streamlined publication, and at-risk features
17:01:52 <nigel> Gary: The question is what to do with the outstanding snapshot pull request with at-risk features.
17:02:10 <nigel> .. There's agreement to close it, update bikeshed etc and start work on a new snapshot pull request.
17:02:25 <nigel> Atsushi: You can have at-risk features in the CR, marked up as such.
17:02:35 <nigel> Gary: Yes we can use the new bikeshed features for that.
17:02:52 <nigel> Atsushi: What we need to do to publish the CRS is asking for Horizontal Review and Wide Review, as well
17:03:05 <nigel> .. as a WG decision for streamlined publication, which I would propose.
17:03:15 <nigel> .. The last WebVTT publication to /TR was 2019 I believe.
17:03:30 <nigel> .. Updating the CR Draft should be the most front matter for me.
17:03:34 <nigel> Gary: That makes sense.
17:03:54 <nigel> Atsushi: Chairs, is it possible to raise a CfC about using streamlined publication for WebVTT?
17:04:14 <nigel> Gary: Just for how to publish the snapshot whenever its made?
17:04:38 <nigel> Atsushi: For several years there has been a new stage, CR Draft, which can be published at any time between
17:04:57 <nigel> .. CR Snapshots without any formality, it's like an Editor's Draft.
17:05:07 <nigel> Gary: Publish what we have now on /TR
17:05:20 <nigel> Atsushi: Yes, also auto-publish on PR merge every time.
17:05:36 <nigel> Gary: Sounds like a good idea. I need to update my affiliation, but aside from that sounds like a good
17:05:40 <nigel> .. idea to raise the CfC.
17:05:48 <nigel> Nigel: I have no objection - will you do that then?
17:06:10 <nigel> Gary: Just an email?
17:06:19 <nigel> Nigel: Yes, for example see the one I did for IMSC recently.
17:06:25 <nigel> Gary: Two week decision period?
17:06:35 <nigel> Nigel: Yes. that's the minimum according to our Decision Policy.
17:06:54 <nigel> Topic: Meeting close
17:07:15 <nigel> Nigel: Thanks everyone. Next meeting in 2 weeks, same time UTC 1600.
17:07:33 <nigel> -> https://github.com/w3c/ttwg/issues/330 2026-03-26 meeting agenda
17:07:42 <nigel> Nigel: [adjourns meeting]
17:07:46 <nigel> rrsagent, make minutes
17:07:48 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2026/03/12-tt-minutes.html nigel
17:11:23 <nigel> s/docuemnt/document/g
17:11:48 <nigel> Regrets+ Cyril
17:13:21 <nigel> s/CVS/version control system
17:14:56 <nigel> s/will you do that then/Gary, will you do that then
17:15:14 <nigel> s/that's the/That's the
17:15:23 <nigel> rrsagent, make minutes
17:15:24 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2026/03/12-tt-minutes.html nigel
17:15:40 <nigel> Present+ Pierre
17:15:41 <nigel> rrsagent, make minutes
17:15:43 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2026/03/12-tt-minutes.html nigel
17:16:16 <nigel> scribeOptions: -final -noEmbedDiagnostics
17:16:19 <nigel> zakim, end meeting
17:16:19 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been Nigel, Andreas, Atsushi, Gary, Pierre
17:16:21 <Zakim> RRSAgent, please draft minutes v2
17:16:22 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2026/03/12-tt-minutes.html Zakim
17:16:28 <Zakim> I am happy to have been of service, nigel; please remember to excuse RRSAgent.  Goodbye
17:16:29 <Zakim> Zakim has left #tt
17:16:32 <nigel> rrsagent, excuse us
17:16:32 <RRSAgent> I see no action items