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 16:14:01 +0800
Message-ID: <94ad087a0906290114h12b79e1te81f7d20869043fa@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>
come on now, aren't we making a mountain out of a mole hill here??? the "(or
transparency)" is obviously a parenthetical remark, and it is obvious that
the term transparency itself is not used in a normative sense anywhere in
the document, here it is an aid to the reader
and of course DFXP clearly marks normative vs informative sections, but it
does not do so at the granularity of words or phrases; some words that
appear in prose are not defined normatively, yet are used normatively in
some cases, but informative in other cases, e.g., the word "is"

just let this one go please, it isn't worth arguing about

On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 3:58 PM, Daniel Weck <daniel.weck@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> 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 08:14:42 GMT

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