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

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.