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

Re: *Last Call* Timed Text document (Review by June 30)

From: Glenn Adams <gadams@xfsi.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2009 07:05:06 +0800
Message-ID: <94ad087a0906281605r3619c39fkda537d9aa41f7cfc@mail.gmail.com>
To: Daniel Weck <daniel.weck@gmail.com>
Cc: "public-tt@w3.org TTWG List" <public-tt@w3.org>, Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>, Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>
The word "transparency" as appears in prose in DFXP is not the same as the
keyword "transparent" which is a specific named color value. The word
"transparency" is not used normatively in the language. I believe there is
nothing misleading about the use in 8.2.14 if one merely applies the
conceptual fact that "transparency" is the inverse of "opacity".

On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 5:33 AM, Daniel Weck <daniel.weck@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 28 Jun 2009, at 17:25, Silvia Pfeiffer wrote:
>
>> * Why is the backgroundColor called "transparent", when the region
>> attribute is called "opacity" - why not choose the same word?
>>
>
> Personally, I'm all for keeping the attribute name "opacity" (I'm used to
> the SMIL notation and I'm very happy with it), but I would suggest removing
> "(or transparency)" in the text for [8.2.14 tts:opacity]. It's very
> misleading.
>
>
Received on Sunday, 28 June 2009 23:05:47 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 2 November 2009 22:41:43 GMT