[wg/timed-text] Timed Text Working Group Charter

[himorin]

New charter proposal, reviewers please take note.

Charter Review

Charter

• diff from charter template
• diff from previous charter

chair dashboard

What kind of charter is this? Check the relevant box / remove irrelevant branches.

• New

• New WG
• New IG
• If this is a new WG or IG charter request, link to Advance Notice, and any issue discussion:

• Existing

• Existing WG recharter
• Existing IG recharter
• If this is a charter extension or revision, any issue discussion:

Horizontal Reviews: apply the Github label "Horizontal review requested" to request reviews for accessibility (a11y), internationalization (i18n), privacy, security, and TAG. Also add a "card" for this issue to the Strategy Funnel.

Communities suggested for outreach

external groups existing in liaison

Known or potential areas of concern

https://github.com/w3c/charter-timed-text/issues
draft copied into charter drafts, PR is welcome to there

Anything else we should think about as we review?

/cc @nigelmegitt @gkatsev

[himorin]

One PR is on going to update text with recent progress. After merging, draft will be updated to align with current charter template, and I plan to mark this as horizontal review requested.

@plehegar is it ok to send advance notice, once above PR merged?

[plehegar]

ok to send the advance notice.

[himorin]

aligned with template, and ready to go further. sorry for taking time on preparation works, and quite thank chairs for supports!

[plehegar]

Advance notice

[himorin]

The first paragraph of Success criteria section has In order to advance to Proposed Recommendation ,, which shall be replaced with Candidate Recommendation, per potential Process update.

[nigelmegitt]

The first paragraph of Success criteria section has In order to advance to Proposed Recommendation ,, which shall be replaced with Candidate Recommendation, per potential Process update.

I think it would change to "In order to advance to Recommendation" if the Process change happens before the Charter is reviewed.

[himorin]

@nigelmegitt ah, sorry for lack of words (recorded as memo to myself during drafting i18n horizontal review), but I actually meant to update into text in charter template as In order to advance beyond Candidate Recommendation, each normative specification is

[nigelmegitt]

Yes, "beyond CR" is fine.

[ruoxiran]

Looks good to APA.

[himorin]

No comment or request from i18n

[plehegar]

No comment from Privacy WG

[himorin]

@simoneonofri may I ask you about progress of security review on this?

[simoneonofri]

No comment from Security IG

[himorin]

No comment from Security IG

thank you for reply!

[himorin]

pushed to https://github.com/w3c/charter-drafts/blob/gh-pages/2025/timed-text-wg.html

[nigelmegitt]

pushed to https://github.com/w3c/charter-drafts/blob/gh-pages/2025/timed-text-wg.html

Viewable at https://w3c.github.io/charter-drafts/2025/timed-text-wg.html

[plehegar]

The charter uses RFC2119 capitalization (MUST, SHOULD, MAY) even if it does not reference that RFC. It may trigger the question of what happens when it does not. My preference would be to use lowercase on those words to avoid creating confusion.

What's the rational to continue to use the W3C Document license? I can understand this for the case of WCAG but it's less evident for TTML.

WebVTT has not been updated since 2019. One change was done in 2021. Did the state of implementations changed in the 4 years? (not requesting a change in the charter, just being curious).

TTML Profiles for Internet Media Subtitles and Captions 1.3 was never published so it is at best in "Editor's Draft" status (otherwise there would have been a call of exclusion in the past).

[himorin]

The charter uses RFC2119 capitalization (MUST, SHOULD, MAY) even if it does not reference that RFC. It may trigger the question of what happens when it does not. My preference would be to use lowercase on those words to avoid creating confusion.

will change. (fine right? @nigelmegitt

What's the rational to continue to use the W3C Document license? I can understand this for the case of WCAG but it's less evident for TTML.

that is intention of WG which I have failed to change.

WebVTT has not been updated since 2019. One change was done in 2021. Did the state of implementations changed in the 4 years? (not requesting a change in the charter, just being curious).

as mentioned only one substantive change added at 2021 on unbounded, due to lack of activity quite small efforts have been made recently. discussion continues, like with Apple during TPAC, still no change on implementation.

TTML Profiles for Internet Media Subtitles and Captions 1.3 was never published so it is at best in "Editor's Draft" status (otherwise there would have been a call of exclusion in the past).

It's my fault on forgetting replacement before request, I've allowed to mention as WD that WG stated to try buliding publication material before HR finished but not yet finished. Will change per current status and preparation.

[nigelmegitt]

The charter uses RFC2119 capitalization (MUST, SHOULD, MAY) even if it does not reference that RFC. It may trigger the question of what happens when it does not. My preference would be to use lowercase on those words to avoid creating confusion.

will change. (fine right? @nigelmegitt

Seems harmless to change it either to reference RFC2119 or to make the terms lower case. But it is unnecessary work to address a purely hypothetical issue that hasn't been raised on multiple previous iterations of the Charter, so I would also be happy to leave it as is.

[nigelmegitt]

What's the rational to continue to use the W3C Document license? I can understand this for the case of WCAG but it's less evident for TTML.

that is intention of WG which I have failed to change.

This has been discussed in the group, and so far it is the TTWG's active decision to leave this as is. It's not a passive non-choice, in other words.

[plehegar]

Thank you @himorin @nigelmegitt

[dontcallmedom]

The Council that overruled the formal objection to the current charter hinted that the success criteria could benefit from wordsmithing and clarifying the intended evaluation of these criteria (but suggested not holding up the then-in review charter) - has any work toward that refinement been done, and discussions with the then-objector considered?

[nigelmegitt]

The Council that overruled the formal objection to the current charter hinted that the success criteria could benefit from wordsmithing and clarifying the intended evaluation of these criteria (but suggested not holding up the then-in review charter) - has any work toward that refinement been done, and discussions with the then-objector considered?

No changes discussed or made. Re-reading that Council Report, it appears that the Council was actually satisfied with the wording at the time, and as you say, only hinted that some improvement in clarity could be achieved through editing, without specifically pointing to the ambiguities that would benefit from such clarification.

My preference here would be to accept that we had agreement on the wording and not open up a new debate over an area that's clearly contentious to some members, for whatever reasons.

[himorin]

added draft PR as w3c/charter-drafts#632, for agreed points.

[himorin]

@nigelmegitt some other minor comments

• section 3.2 New Normative Specifications Continuously Under Development in deliverables has word new as ones haven't reached to REC, but it's confusing with 3.1. It seems even removing new, subsection title could stand
• at bottom of section 3.2, we keep The Working Group MAY develop additional Recommendation-track specifications. from older charter, but current Process allows WG to update existing RECs. So removing this line aligns charter with current Process without any harm.

how do you think?

[nigelmegitt]

@nigelmegitt some other minor comments

* section 3.2 `New Normative Specifications Continuously Under Development` in [deliverables](https://w3c.github.io/charter-drafts/2025/timed-text-wg.html#deliverables) has word `new` as ones haven't reached to REC, but it's confusing with 3.1. It seems even removing `new`, subsection title could stand

Yes, I think it would probably be okay to remove new from the 3.2 heading.

* at bottom of section 3.2, we keep `The Working Group MAY develop additional Recommendation-track specifications.` from [older charter](https://www.w3.org/2018/05/timed-text-charter.html#deliverables), but current Process [allows WG to update existing RECs](https://www.w3.org/policies/process/20231103/#revising-rec). So removing this line aligns charter with current Process without any harm.

We have not declared all our existing Recs as allowing new features, so I think it's important to keep the line in for clarity.

[himorin]

* at bottom of section 3.2, we keep `The Working Group MAY develop additional Recommendation-track specifications.` from [older charter](https://www.w3.org/2018/05/timed-text-charter.html#deliverables), but current Process [allows WG to update existing RECs](https://www.w3.org/policies/process/20231103/#revising-rec). So removing this line aligns charter with current Process without any harm.

We have not declared all our existing Recs as allowing new features, so I think it's important to keep the line in for clarity.

Sorry, I've failed to write correctly and crashing two points into one sentence...
At the bottom of 3.2 and in 3.3, we have two lines:

• 3.2: The Working Group MAY develop additional Recommendation-track specifications.
• 3.3: The Working Group MAY update its previously published Normative Specifications.

original comment following 'but current Process' is targeting to 3.3, that even without allowing new features we can restart update per Process 6.3.11, and just writing something as The Working Group will maintain errata and new editions, as necessary for previously published Normative Specifications. would be enough.

For the bottom line in 3.2, a similar line is included from 2019 charter, but usually charter lists specific items under incubation (e.g. ones in CGs) and does not have full-freely acceptable wording (or explicitly prohibit new one).
I wasn't there when 2019 charter was developed, and lack of knowledge about the original intention, but do we need to keep this as is? (which could cause AC appeal during AC review.)

[himorin]

@nigelmegitt @gkatsev The Team would want to hear more about status and current situation on specification development.

For WebVTT, the Timed-Text WG has already discussed about status updates during last rechartering, and also in parallel to discussions within WICG/datacue incubation, there are conversations on WebVTT and implementation related to VTTCue at TPAC, but it seems quite a little progress have been made on specification development and implementation.
Let us ask the Timed-Text WG about recent updates and current situations, including potential plan for seeking additional contributor(s).

For TTML2; the Timed-Text WG is focusing on development of the DAPT specification, and IMSC 1.3 is the next focus. But the latest publication of TTML2 is 2nd edition CR2 which is almost 4 years ago, and also there are several open HR needs-resolutions still needs investigation and development. Some of i18n issues especially ones related to direction have been extensively discussed in the past on difference between XML-FO based TTML2 and current CSS definition, like minites on PR #1214 (closed) and its following up in i18n, but still open and was actually proposed to postphone to TTML3.
Let us ask the Timed-Text WG about current plan around whole ecosystem on TTML and its profiles, and also updates of -needs-resolution HR issues.

[himorin]

TTWG added this item to agenda for upcoming bi-weekly call (2025-03-13), and will back to strat issue once concluded/agreed.

[himorin]

@nigelmegitt @gkatsev could you kindly provide any comment from WG co-chairs' point of view on statuses and activities of these specifications?

[nigelmegitt]

@himorin is https://www.w3.org/2025/03/13-tt-minutes.html#5f3a enough?