- From: Pierre-Anthony Lemieux <pal@sandflow.com>
- Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2017 07:58:38 -0800
- To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Cc: Momdo Nakamura <xmomdo@gmail.com>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
Hi fantasai, Thanks for the feedback! > 'over' and 'under' also take into account the 'writing-mode', except they do so in a way that handles Mongolian better. Ok. I can file an issue against TTML2. Any additional detail on "handles Mongolian better"? [ed.: I am not a Mongolian expert] > The case of "only two lines" isn't really a significant consideration in CSS-based documents. :) Unless the document to which CSS is applied is contains captions and/or subtitles, right? Wouldn't that be the case for WebVTT or TTML when rendered on the web platform? Best, -- Pierre On Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 3:55 PM, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net> wrote: > On 02/02/2017 02:10 PM, Pierre-Anthony Lemieux wrote: >> >> Hi fantasai et al., >> >> I see the following issues: >> >> - the problem statement below indicates "[over/under/left/right] is >> redundant and painful for authors". Doesn't 'before' >> and 'after' solve this issue since they automatically take into >> account writing direction? > > > 'over' and 'under' also take into account the 'writing-mode', > except they do so in a way that handles Mongolian better. > >> - TTML2 defines the 'auto' and 'outside' keywords, which, presumably, >> have been found to be useful, but are not included in CSS >> text-emphasis-position. Does CSS WG believe these keywords are not >> useful and/or harmful? > > > The case of "only two lines" isn't really a significant consideration > in CSS-based documents. :) I think it's fine for TTML to have 'outside', > it makes more sense for their use case. I would probably suggest not > using TTML-only behavior as the default, though. > > ~fantasai
Received on Friday, 3 February 2017 15:59:32 UTC