W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-tt@w3.org > May 2013

Re: TTML Agenda for 15/05/13

From: Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com>
Date: Wed, 15 May 2013 14:07:41 -0600
Message-ID: <CACQ=j+euGwJTaUWvxDd8MHJCbXoXiCxO-PdoGX0SXdh1obMstQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Michael Dolan <mdolan@newtbt.com>
Cc: public-tt <public-tt@w3.org>
On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 1:34 PM, Michael Dolan <mdolan@newtbt.com> wrote:

> Your agenda says: "Approval of....", hence my advance concern.  Plans are
> good.
>
> Re Proposal #2 (in addition to the AI I thought Glenn still had about
> flow):
>
> Although there was email discussion about them being anonymous regions, how
> is that inferred from the proposal language? Even if it is normatively
> inferred, it might be good to informatively note that explicitly as it is
> crucial to understanding the basic behavior.
>
> What styles do they inherit?  I think the styles would need to be inherited
> from the "current" region, not the styles from the near-proximity parent
> elements.  More on this and other things in the attached email from last
> summer, which I don't recall resolution on.
>

The is no "current" region, just the anonymous generated region. If an
extent/origin were specified on tt:p, then other styles specified on tt:p
that apply to region (but not tt:p) would also be assigned to that region.

Otherwise, style inheritance would work exactly as defined in 8.4.2.

Specifically, if one had something like:

<div region="r1">
  <p tts:extent="..." tts:origin="...">Text that doesn't go in r1, but goes
into an anonymous region</p>
</div>

In other words, it would work just as if one had specified:

<region id="r2">
  <style extent="..."/>
  <style origin="..."/>
</region>
...
<div region="r1">
  <p region="r2">Text that doesn't go in r1, but goes into r2</p>
</div>

The current language in 9.3.2 already handles this case.


> Unrelated, can we add an agenda item to accept the old liaison requests
> from
> SMPTE and thus enable work on specific proposals?
>
>         Mike
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sean Hayes [mailto:Sean.Hayes@microsoft.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2013 11:09 AM
> To: Michael Dolan; public-tt@w3.org
> Subject: RE: TTML Agenda for 15/05/13
>
> Yes CP5 is not up for approval at this time, I only wrote it today as per
> my
> AI form last week; so I'll just be going over whats there.
>
> CP 1 & 2 have been out there for a long time and no discussion, so we need
> to make progress on them it's not so much that I expect to approve them
> this
> week, although that would be nice, but more that I want to know
> specifically
> what the action plan is for doing so.
>
> As to the defined behavior, I believe the mapping is well defined to
> intermediate anonymous region, so that the text flow issues are as well
> defined as text flows are in any region however I will go back and check
> that in advance of the discussion tomorrow.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael Dolan [mailto:mdolan@newtbt.com]
> Sent: 15 May 2013 18:59
> To: public-tt@w3.org
> Subject: RE: TTML Agenda for 15/05/13
>
> Some advance thoughts:
>
> 1. Proposal 1 (extension to set) is OK with me.
>
> 2. Proposal 2 (origin and extent semantics for <p>) - although I am
> cautiously supportive of exploring this, I thought we previously agreed
> that
> it is still lacking defined behavior for how text would flow within the
> region, including wrap behavior, as well as the behavior of CR, LF and TAB
> when content is randomly placed like this.  I think flow examples would be
> needed just to better understand the ramifications, as this will be
> complex.
> An alternative might be to define a non-flow region? (Just an idea - the
> use
> cases that this addresses do not generally involve "rollup" captions).  A
> minor comment on the first bullet of the "Impact" - the fact that there are
> attributes that have no semantic meaning on some elements is a very general
> issue and therefore the fact that the XML schema (properly) represents the
> permitted syntaxes on <p> is not really relevant or specific to the
> affected
> element and attributes. Suggest it be deleted.
>
> 3. Proposal 5 - Although we discussed this generally, I don't recall seeing
> these details before. I'm not opposed, but it seems like it would be
> premature to approve it tomorrow.
>
> Regards,
>
>         Mike
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sean Hayes [mailto:Sean.Hayes@microsoft.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2013 10:04 AM
> To: 'public-tt@w3.org'
> Subject: TTML Agenda for 15/05/13
>
>
> our teleconference is scheduled with reference to Boston Time, the correct
> time of this teleconference in your locale may change. Please check
>
> http://timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?month=05&day=15&year=2013&h
> our=10&min=0&sec=0&p1=43
>
> Thursdays 10:00am-11:00am Boston local
>
>  Zakim Bridge +1.617.761.6200, conference 8865 ("TTML")
> IRC: server: irc.w3.org, port: 6665, channel: #tt Web gateway to
> :http://www.w3.org/2001/01/cgi-irc
>
>
> Chair: Sean Hayes
>
> Agenda+ Assign Scribe
>
> Agenda+ Proposed updates to charter :
> http://www.w3.org/2013/05/timed-text-charter.html
>
> Agenda+ Progress on publication of SE
>
> Agenda+ HTML5 mapping (now as change proposal [1])
>
> Agenda+ Approval of 1.1 Change proposals [2] and [3].
>
> AOB
>
> Tracker (Issues and Actions): http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/tracker
> Profile draft:  http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/ttml/raw-file/tip/ttml10-sdp-us
>
> Change proposals:
> [1] http://www.w3.org/wiki/TTML/changeProposal005
> [2] http://www.w3.org/wiki/TTML/changeProposal001
> [2] http://www.w3.org/wiki/TTML/changeProposal002
>
>
> TTML Wiki
> http://www.w3.org/wiki/TimedText
>
> Second edition draft:
>
>
> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/ttml/raw-file/tip/ttml10/spec/ttaf1-dfxp.html?content
> -type=text/html%3bcharset=utf-8
>
>
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 15 May 2013 20:08:33 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 5 October 2017 18:24:09 UTC