Re: text-wrap balance

On Wed., 19 Jun. 2019, 9:54 pm David Singer, <singer@apple.com> wrote:

>
>
> > On Jun 19, 2019, at 13:43 , Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On Wed., 19 Jun. 2019, 5:46 pm David Singer, <singer@apple.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > > On Jun 19, 2019, at 9:33 , Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wed., 19 Jun. 2019, 1:45 pm Glenn Adams, <glenn@skynav.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 6:02 PM Silvia Pfeiffer <
> silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 10:32 PM David Singer <singer@apple.com>
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > On Jun 18, 2019, at 14:19 , Silvia Pfeiffer <
> silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > While I agree with this and also have no problem excluding this
> from REC, is still like to encourage the CSS WG to continue with it.
> Glenn's listing of existing deterministic algorithms in this space should
> be enough to give us an expectation that it's feasible and technically
> possible.
> > > >
> > > > I’ve heard offline that people think that there are reasonable
> algorithms too. That doesn’t make it specifiiable yet, tho.
> > >
> > > I don't follow: if it's been implemented and made replicable, it can
> > > be specified.
> > >
> > > Just because some algorithm can be specified doesn't mean it will be
> specified in a form that permits a normative reference, particularly in a
> reasonable amount of time. Are you willing to wait for 2 or 3 years to
> elapse to get an algorithm written into a CSS spec, get it tested, and move
> that spec to at least PR or REC before moving forward on VTT?
> > >
> > > We can wait if there's progress (not with REC, but we don't need it
> for REC).
> >
> > we can’t go to Rec with the default being something that’s
> underspecified and unimplemented, and we are way past needing to go to Rec.
> >
> >
> > Why would a missing balancing algorithm stop us from going to REC?
>
> Because there is a mandate that it’s the default:
>
>         • the text-wrap property must be set to balance [CSS-TEXT-4]
>


We just leave it to the UA and remove this sentence altogether for REC. As
Nigel stated, that was already the decision. So that should not hold it up.


> It's not like the text can't be rendered in the traditional CSS fashion,
> which is what browsers do currently.
>
> It doesn’t actually say that everyone has to *support* balance, though
> that’s implied. I suppose we could insert normative text to say that when
> the text-wrap property is ‘balance’, UAs may simply wrap.
>

That might be a bit confusing about how to interpret balance. I suggest we
simply take it out and add it to the next version, which is already the
decision the group made and I'm completely fine with.

In the interest of clarifying my position: I support what the group have
decided about this feature and how to move forward with WebVTT. I merely
wanted to point out that we should let the CSS group know that "text-wrap:
balance" is still important to us. That's all.

Cheers,
Silvia.