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

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

From: Daniel Weck <daniel.weck@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2009 08:58:18 +0100
Cc: "public-tt@w3.org TTWG List" <public-tt@w3.org>, Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>, Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>
Message-Id: <519CC4AC-79AB-4F16-B447-A21432E947F2@gmail.com>
To: Glenn Adams <gadams@xfsi.com>

On 29 Jun 2009, at 00:05, Glenn Adams wrote:

> The word "transparency" as appears in prose in DFXP is not the same  
> as the keyword "transparent" which is a specific named color value.

Of course.

> The word "transparency" is not used normatively in the language.

The work "transparency" is used in the text for [8.2.14 tts:opacity],  
which looks like a normative section of the specification. Or maybe it  
should be marked "informative" ? (actually I'm not sure whether the  
DFXP specification explicitly distinguishes between "normative" and  
"informative" sections...)

> 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".

http://www.w3.org/TR/ttaf1-dfxp/#style-attribute-opacity

The text in the specification implies that "opacity" is a synonym of  
"transparency", which is obviously not the case:

"...that defines the opacity (or transparency) of marks..."

The specification should leave no room for personal interpretation: if  
"transparency" is the conceptual opposite of "opacity", then make it  
explicit. Or avoid mentioning "(or transparency)" all together.
Received on Monday, 29 June 2009 07:58:59 GMT

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