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 16:26:57 +0800
Message-ID: <94ad087a0906290126s7b649ce9r539cd1728c9fb01d@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>
just a further reminder, the value of tts:opacity is defined by using the
<alpha> style value expression defined in section 8.3.1, where it is made
perfectly clear what is opaque and what is transparent:

An <alpha> expression is used to express an opacity value, where 0 means
fully transparent and 1 means fully opaque.
it is this text that is most relevant for the purpose of interpreting the
meaning of the value of the tts:opacity property;

On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 4:14 PM, Glenn Adams <gadams@xfsi.com> wrote:

> 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 08:27:38 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 5 October 2017 18:24:04 UTC