- From: Philip Jägenstedt <philipj@opera.com>
- Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2014 12:14:43 +0700
- To: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
- Cc: Victor Carbune <victor.carbune@gmail.com>, "public-texttracks@w3.org" <public-texttracks@w3.org>
On Sun, Feb 23, 2014 at 11:05 AM, Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com> wrote: > Victor, Philip, all, > > Does this make sense to you? If so, I can start preparing a branch > with patches for this. I've read all the mails in this thread but don't see a concrete suggestion for unification. What concrete changes are we talking about, and what are they unifying? As for an implicit anonymous region, I think that is the wrong way to phrase this in the spec. Certainly currently it would be completely wrong since a region changes the rendering algorithm completely. I'd like us to have an internal concept of constraining the size available for layout that is honored for snap-to-line cues and that a region simply establishes such a constraint. We don't need an anonymous region because lack of a region is simply a lack of such a constraint... (Not honoring constraints for non-snap-to-line cues gets rid of the percentage-positioned-cue-in-region case which AFAIK there is no use case for.) Philip
Received on Sunday, 23 February 2014 05:15:13 UTC