14:58:11 RRSAgent has joined #tt 14:58:15 logging to https://www.w3.org/2026/05/21-tt-irc 14:58:15 RRSAgent, make logs Public 14:58:16 Meeting: Timed Text Working Group Teleconference 14:58:22 scribe: nigel 14:58:25 Agenda: https://github.com/w3c/ttwg/issues/339 14:59:48 Previous meeting: https://www.w3.org/2026/05/07-tt-minutes.html 14:59:57 Present: Nigel, Cyril 15:00:04 Chair: Nigel, Gary 15:00:17 Topic: This meeting 15:00:32 rrsagent, make minutes 15:00:33 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2026/05/21-tt-minutes.html nigel 15:00:42 Present+ Andreas 15:03:02 cpn has joined #tt 15:03:12 Present+ Chris_Needham, Pierre, Dana 15:03:44 scribe+ cpn 15:04:02 Chair: Nigel 15:04:26 atai has joined #tt 15:04:46 Topic: Meeting agenda 15:05:32 Nigel: One DAPT issue, IMSC 1.3 final details and Rec published, TTML Media Type and Profile Registry, WebVTT license 15:06:07 ... Impact of AI technologies on our mission, and TPAC planning 15:06:14 ... Anything else? 15:06:17 Present+ Atsushi 15:06:56 (Nothing0 15:06:56 Topic: IMSC 1.3 15:07:06 s/Nothing0/Nothing)/ 15:07:11 -> Latest publication REC 2026-05-21 https://www.w3.org/TR/ttml-imsc1.3/ 15:07:21 Nigel: We published Rec today. Congratulations and thanks everybody for your work on it 15:07:24 -> News item: https://www.w3.org/news/2026/imsc-text-profile-1-3-is-now-a-w3c-recommendation/ 15:08:08 Pierre: Thanks everybody for helping push it along 15:08:15 ... Could discuss IMSC Image Profile today? 15:08:32 -> unversioned IMSC link: https://www.w3.org/TR/ttml-imsc/ 15:09:22 Nigel: This link takes you to IMSC 1.3, but that doesn't refer you to 1.2 for the Image Profile. Propose adding to the Abstract to point people there 15:10:14 Pierre: I prefer either to change nothing - as IMSC Image Profile is a specialist tool, and our survey showed very few people use it, and we don't really want people adopting it going forward. So it's ok not to link to it 15:10:49 ... Also, not a great idea to bake a link to 1.2 in the abstract in case there needs to be a new version of Image Profile in future 15:11:13 ... May be better to acknowledge there are two profiles of IMSC, and have two canonical links to track each of the profiles 15:11:38 Nigel: The canonical link we have is derived from the shortname 15:11:51 Pierre: I realise the second option is ambitious, so I actually prefer to do nothing 15:11:57 Nigel: Any other views? 15:12:09 Andreas: Unless we hear complaints, do nothing 15:12:54 Cyril: IMSC versions are usually supersets of previous versions, and the Image Profile in 1.3 so it's not a superset 15:13:10 Pierre: Each version of a profile is a superset of the profile 15:13:47 Cyril: Otherwise my suggestion would have been not to mention the Image Profile, but make a blanket statement to refer to the previous version 15:13:57 Pierre: We have that statement, just not in the Abstract 15:14:34 Nigel: Do nothing seems to have enough consensus for now 15:14:56 ... Atsushi, there's some complexity with errata and release tags. Anything else we need to do? 15:15:44 -> https://github.com/w3c/imsc/pull/644 Pull request to revert to ED from Rec 15:16:54 Atsushi: We need to get the github.io version to ? per request from the Guide. Streamlined publication for IMSC 1.3 has Rec as final state. I commented out the publication status from the GitHub action 15:17:13 Nigel: So if we start working on a new version, we get a new token 15:17:15 Atsushi: Yes 15:17:36 Nigel: So the action is to create the release tag based on what's in the repo now. Pierre, do you want to do that? 15:17:56 Atsushi: You can create a tag from the current HEAD 15:18:11 Nigel: Yes, especially if there's no change to the Abstract 15:18:43 Pierre: Why did the CI fail? 15:18:53 Atsushi: It tried to update /TR 15:19:12 Pierre: I'll compare the HEAD of the main branch with the actual Rec, check there's no differences, then create the tag 15:19:17 Nigel: Sounds good. Thank you 15:20:02 -> https://github.com/w3c/tt-profile-registry/issues/87 TTML Profile Registry entry for IMSC 1.3 15:20:30 -> https://github.com/w3c/tt-profile-registry/pull/90 PR, needs an approve 15:20:43 Nigel: There's a PR for this issue. It just needs approving, now IMSC 1.3 is at Rec 15:20:59 Pierre: I'll approve that 15:21:21 Nigel: Thank you 15:21:35 Atsushi: The publication token is tied to the shortname, so if you change that you need a new token 15:22:15 ... If the WG wants to update the Abstract, it should update in place of the Recommendation, so there's a checklist. There'd be no ReSpec source for that 15:22:42 Nigel: For now, we won't change the Abstract 15:23:01 ... Anything else to cover on IMSC 1.3? 15:23:19 (Nothing) 15:23:26 Nigel: Thanks again Pierre for all your effort 15:23:42 Topic: TTML Media Type Definition and Profile Registry 15:24:02 Nigel: I think we don't have auto-publication for this? 15:24:11 Atsushi: We can configure it for any publication 15:24:17 Nigel: That would be good 15:24:42 Atsushi: Once we've resolved to use streamlined publication for the Registry. In the past we decided one by one, so just need a resolution 15:25:23 PROPOSAL: Auto-publish the TTML Profile Registry as a Note on pull request merge, based on the usual TTWG Decision policy applying to pull requests 15:26:03 Chris: Sounds good to me 15:26:08 +1 15:26:12 +1 15:27:29 RESOLUTION: Auto-publish the TTML Profile Registry as a Note on pull request merge, based on the usual TTWG Decision policy applying to pull requests 15:28:34 Nigel: There are some PRs open. Please review 15:29:01 Topic: DAPT 15:29:18 Subtopic: Profile identifier and TTML registry w3c/dapt#248 15:29:50 github: https://github.com/w3c/dapt/issues/248 15:30:02 Nigel: When I raised a PR to add the DAPT profile identifier to the profile registry, I realised DAPT is different as it has two profiles shown, which are one for the content profile, and one for the processor profile 15:30:20 ... I didn't find where this originated. The profile registry should have the processor profile 15:30:33 ... And the ?2 will have the content profile 15:30:53 ... That might be confusing for people. Maybe we change it so there's one profile designator 15:31:39 ... Processor profiles have mime type parameters, whereas content profiles says what profile the content conforms to 15:32:57 Cyril: I looked at the DAPT spec, the only use we have for Processor Profile, besides its formal definition, is in a Note that says that normally you shouldn't use it, unless [...] 15:33:22 ... We have no tests exercising that 15:33:43 ... It's a bit annoying to have to issue a new CR for this, but... 15:34:16 Nigel: Formally, having different designators makes sense, but then balance that against potential for confusion. I think people will expect them to be the same 15:34:44 Cyril: There's a table in Annex F, explaining what features are required, optional, and how they're treated in the processor and content profiles 15:34:57 ... If we remove the processor profile completely, how to deal with that? 15:35:11 Nigel: Not suggesting removing the profile, just use the same designator 15:35:24 ... That's defined in 5.6 at the moment 15:35:56 ... All we need to do is remove the word "content" and "processor" from each, and everything else stays the same 15:36:19 Cyril: Not sure why we introduced the processor profile concept, may be about audio that's supported by some tools 15:36:46 ... But I remember the Note in 5.6.4 about not using the processor profile attribute 15:37:17 Present+ Gary 15:37:20 Chair: Nigel, Gary 15:37:49 ... I need to think about this, but my inclination is to remove mention of the processor profiles 15:38:14 Nigel: I want to make the smallest change possible, so changing the designator, so both profiles use the same designator 15:38:50 Nigel: I can open a PR that makes this change for us to consider and make a decision based on that? 15:38:53 Cyril: OK 15:39:25 Andreas: How can we define to different profiles with a single designator? 15:39:53 Nigel: Both the processor profile and content profile each have a profile designator, but we make them the same value, instead of one being /content and one being /processor 15:40:37 ... There are no content profiles in there now. Even TTML2 defines content profiles and processor profiles, and I think they have the same designators 15:40:51 Cyril: IMSC only talks about a profile designator 15:41:10 Andreas: You can still distinguish them by setting the type attribute? 15:41:15 Nigel: Yes, exactly 15:41:18 SUMMARY: @nigelmegitt to open pull request making the content and processor profile designators the same value 15:41:49 Topic: WebVTT 15:41:54 Subtopic: License 15:42:24 Nigel: Historically WebVTT had a difference license to other TTWG Recs. I think we decided to maintain that state 15:42:37 ... But at some point it was changed? 15:43:01 Atsushi: I checked the record, and decision to use Software and Document license for WebVTT in chartering in 2016 15:43:17 ... From that point, WebVTT shall be published using Software and Document license 15:43:52 ... From 2019, it used the Document license, in the publication, so I was confused 15:45:13 cpn3 has joined #tt 15:45:17 scribe+ cpn3 15:46:01 Gary: The Software and Document license is a little more open than the Document license and 15:46:13 .. that's what we used in the CG. It makes sense to keep it. 15:46:50 Nigel: I don't know why it was changed. I think we discussed allowing TTWG to choose license on a spec by spec basis 15:47:10 -> Charter section on Licensing https://www.w3.org/2025/06/timed-text-wg-charter.html#licensing 15:47:20 Gary: I assume it was a mistake when we made the snapshot 15:48:16 Nigel: So we can revert it to the Software and Document license. That needs updating in the Bikeshed boilerplate PR? 15:48:23 Atsushi: Already done 15:49:09 Nigel: Anything else on WebVTT? 15:49:09 (Nothing) 15:49:11 Topic: TPAC Planning 15:50:06 Andreas: I'm interested to know if we have enough topics to discuss at TPAC, and whether people are attending, to help decide whether to travel 15:50:54 Nigel: I assume we would want to meet. Good to ask about topics. We're approaching completion on DAPT, might be done by then, there might be implementation things to discuss 15:51:11 ... As Chair, I want to get TTML 2nd Edition published. That's another topic 15:51:15 ... WebVTT topics? 15:51:26 Gary: Maybe, but I may not be there in person 15:51:47 Nigel: Any interop topics to discuss? 15:52:16 Dana: I'd like to discuss that at TPAC. I've been working on the VTT interop investigation. I'm planning starting a monthly meeting soon, to keep people posted on what's happening 15:52:34 Gary: TPAC2026 is the last week of October in Dublin 15:53:03 Topic: Impact of AI technologies on Timed Text Working Group's mission 15:53:14 Nigel: We started discussing this in our last meeting 15:54:08 ... Last week there was the MPTS show in London. A few stands there related to AI. A company from Germany contacted me, putting more dimensions into captions, such as emotion 15:54:21 ... They seemed to be amenable to the idea of standardisation 15:54:57 ... I asked them about cost of authoring, and they said it took a long time to do manually, but their product uses AI to automate 15:55:56 ... So although AI might not affect our mission directly, there's extra information we might want to put in caption files that's AI generated. Also AI processing to understand what's in media, so having a profile for that, DAPT might be good for that. 15:56:42 Cyril: There's another contact we had, working on captions with intention. Similar. Interesting to talk about that. I agree that authoring is a key part 15:56:51 Gary: I was thinking of the same thing 15:57:08 q+ 15:57:44 Andreas: Other organisations run study missions to formulate some use cases first. Then see if there's something to be done 15:57:45 ack at 15:58:05 Nigel: Chris, would this be a good idea for an MEIG study mission? 15:58:21 Chris: MEIG has been asked the same question, I'm expecting to have the same conversation there. 15:58:35 .. Possibly on the agenda for the MEIG meeting the week after next. 15:58:46 .. That would be a broader conversation, not just about captioning but media in general. 15:58:56 .. I'm open to the idea of using MEIG as a place to cover that stuff. 15:59:38 Nigel: I'm thinking MEIG could note the direction of travel and identify any requirements. 15:59:45 .. Those requirements could then come back into TTWG if appropriate. 15:59:54 Chris: It would still be the same people doing the work, but in a different context. 16:00:32 Nigel: It would be easier for non-members of W3C to participate in the MEIG work. 16:00:34 Nigel: We could fold other organisations into the work, easier to do there 16:00:57 Chris: And helps TTWG stay focused on its deliverables, and MEIG is more exploratory 16:01:12 Topic: Next meeting 16:01:20 Nigel: 3rd June 16:01:42 s/3rd/4th 16:01:53 s/June/June, w3c/ttwg#340 16:01:58 Topic: Meeting close 16:02:06 Nigel: Thanks everyone, we're at time. [adjourns meeting] 16:02:30 i/Topic: Next/Nigel: That's a topic for TPAC then, either in MEIG or TTWG 16:02:45 s/TTML 2nd/TTML2 2nd 16:02:55 rrsagent, make minutes 16:02:56 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2026/05/21-tt-minutes.html nigel 16:04:29 s/Topic: Meeting agenda// 16:04:30 rrsagent, make minutes 16:04:32 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2026/05/21-tt-minutes.html nigel 16:05:01 s/News item:/News item 16:05:22 s/IMSC link:/IMSC link 16:06:08 s/version to ? per request/version to ED per request 16:06:45 s/especially if there's/especially since there's 16:07:34 rrsagent, make minutes 16:07:35 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2026/05/21-tt-minutes.html nigel 16:08:49 s/?2/DAPT documents ttp:contentProfile attributes 16:09:23 s/unless [...]/unless you have particular processor requirements you need to express 16:10:12 s/so changing the designator,/which is changing the designator, 16:10:32 s/define to different profiles/define two different profiles 16:11:02 s/no content profiles in there now/no content profiles in the profile registry now 16:11:19 s/and I think they have the same designators/with the same designators 16:11:39 s/a difference license/a different license 16:13:24 s/working on captions with intention/Captions with Intention 16:13:51 s/A company from Germany contacted me/A company from Germany, Phont, contacted me 16:14:38 rrsagent, make minutes 16:14:40 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2026/05/21-tt-minutes.html nigel 16:15:05 scribeOptions: -final -noEmbedDiagnostics 16:15:08 zakim, end meeting 16:15:08 As of this point the attendees have been Nigel, Cyril, Andreas, Chris_Needham, Pierre, Dana, Atsushi, Gary 16:15:10 RRSAgent, please draft minutes v2 16:15:11 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2026/05/21-tt-minutes.html Zakim 16:15:17 I am happy to have been of service, nigel; please remember to excuse RRSAgent. Goodbye 16:15:18 Zakim has left #tt 16:15:25 rrsagent, excuse us 16:15:25 I see no action items