W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-tt@w3.org > April 2009

RE: ISSUE-70 (tts:overflow): region background infinite extent [DFXP 1.0]

From: Sean Hayes <Sean.Hayes@microsoft.com>
Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2009 09:45:33 +0100
To: "Glenn A. Adams" <gadams@xfsi.com>
CC: Public TTWG List <public-tt@w3.org>
Message-ID: <AB3FC8E280628440B366A29DABB6B6E8070E881164@EA-EXMSG-C334.europe.corp.microsoft.com>
Ok, perhaps we can just replace infinite with unconstrained.

Sean Hayes
Media Accessibility Strategist
Accessibility Business Unit
Microsoft

Office:  +44 118 909 5867,
Mobile: +44 7875 091385


-----Original Message-----
From: Glenn A. Adams [mailto:gadams@xfsi.com]
Sent: 27 April 2009 9:38 AM
To: Sean Hayes
Cc: Public TTWG List
Subject: Re: ISSUE-70 (tts:overflow): region background infinite extent [DFXP 1.0]


I agree; however, as you have probably noticed, I have for the most part
completely avoided using XSL FO terminology in the prose describing style
properties, and have instead defered this usage until section 9.3. I would
like to continue avoiding introducing this terminology earlier in the
document.

Notice that XSL 1.1 6.5.3 already normatively says this (referring to areas
generated by fo:block-container):

"The block-progression-dimension of the reference-area is not constrained;
thus the reference-area may be larger than the viewport-area and this may
cause the "overflow" property to operate."

So we effectively already say as much since we normatively reference these
semantics.

G.

On 4/27/09 4:29 PM, "Sean Hayes" <Sean.Hayes@microsoft.com> wrote:

> Yes I see what you mean, but:
> "the content-rectangle of the block-container-reference-area (as generated by
> tt:region) should be considered to be unconstrained (in either block or inline
> progression directions) for the purpose of performing line breaking (line
> composition);"
>
> Is a much better sentence. :-)
>
> Sean Hayes
> Media Accessibility Strategist
> Accessibility Business Unit
> Microsoft
>
> Office:  +44 118 909 5867,
> Mobile: +44 7875 091385
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Glenn A. Adams [mailto:gadams@xfsi.com]
> Sent: 27 April 2009 8:47 AM
> To: Sean Hayes
> Cc: Public TTWG List
> Subject: Re: ISSUE-70 (tts:overflow): region background infinite extent [DFXP
> 1.0]
>
>
> it does not imply anthing regarding region background, since it does not use
> the term "rendering"; i.e., it does not say "region composition, layout, and
> rendering";
>
> region composition and layout includes only those aspects of formatting that
> affect placement of formatted content, and not rendering only styling, such
> as background (or foreground) colors;
>
> i'm not sure what you mean by "initial containing block" here; in XSL FO
> terms, what this is saying is that the content-rectangle of the
> block-container-reference-area (as generated by tt:region) should be
> considered to be unconstrained (in either block or inline progression
> directions) for the purpose of performing line breaking (line composition);
>
> so i think perhaps nothing is needed here;
>
> On 4/24/09 10:56 PM, "Timed Text Working Group Issue Tracker"
> <sysbot+tracker@w3.org> wrote:
>
>>
>> ISSUE-70 (tts:overflow): region background infinite extent  [DFXP 1.0]
>>
>> http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/tracker/issues/70
>>
>> Raised by: Sean Hayes
>> On product: DFXP 1.0
>>
>> "region composition and layout must be performed as if the region's width and
>> height were infinite"
>>
>> This seems to imply that the region background should have infinite extent
>> too? I thought rather it implied that the initial containing block has
>> infinite extent and that no clipping was performed by the region (as the
>> example rendering shows).
>> Could we clarify this sentence.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
Received on Monday, 27 April 2009 08:47:52 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 2 November 2009 22:41:42 GMT