RE: DFXP LC Comments - Issue 10 Response; Bert Bos

The small set of named colors defined in DFXP is intentionally a strict
subset of those named colors used by XSL 1.0, which in turn, is based on
CSS2, which is based on HTML named colors. There is no technical
requirement to make a change at this time since one can specify the same
information using existing means supported by <color>, e.g., #RRGGBB or
rgb(r,g,b).

 

Regards,

Glenn

 

________________________________

From: John Birch [mailto:Johnb@screen.subtitling.com] 
Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2005 5:36 AM
To: Glenn A. Adams
Cc: W3C Public TTWG
Subject: RE: DFXP LC Comments - Issue 10 Response; Bert Bos

 

Glenn, 

I don't know if it is too late for the following comment....... 

I have just noticed that the named colors in DFXP use aqua and fuschia. 
Would it be possible to add cyan and magenta **as equivalents** for
those two named colours - bringing DFXP more in line with the color
terminology widely used in the broadcast industry ... (both Teletext and
EIA 608/708) use these color names [magenta, cyan]. I also notice that
HTML 4.0 includes these color names.

Just a minor point - I realise - and one that could be addressed by a
profile... but given some of the target applications of DFXP it might be
'nice' to include these color names!

regards John Birch 

-----Original Message----- 
From: public-tt-request@w3.org [mailto:public-tt-request@w3.org]On 
Behalf Of Glenn A. Adams 
Sent: 24 August 2005 22:55 
To: Dave Singer 
Cc: W3C Public TTWG 
Subject: RE: DFXP LC Comments - Issue 10 Response; Bert Bos 

 

Thanks for the correction. 

> -----Original Message----- 
> From: Dave Singer [mailto:singer@apple.com] 
> Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2005 5:53 PM 
> To: Glenn A. Adams 
> Cc: W3C Public TTWG 
> Subject: Re: DFXP LC Comments - Issue 10 Response; Bert Bos 
> 
> 
> Comment: Issue #10 [1]; 22 Apr 2005 20:44:52 +0200 
> 
> 7.1.1) Why must xml:lang be specified? Isn't omitting it the same as 
> defining it to be the empty string? 
> 
> Response: 
> 
> The goal is to strongly encourage authors and authoring systems to be 
> explicit about language. Specifying xml:space="" is not the same as 
> not specifying xml:space. The former is an explicit authorial 
> expression of "no default language"; the latter leaves authorial 
> intention unexpressed. We wish to enforce some intentional expression 
> even if it is "no default language". 
> 
> 
> 
> ==> that should read xml:lang, not xml:space.  And it may be worth 
> saying that the author can use "mul" or "und" for multiple or 
> undetermined, when they are determined to be indeterminate. 
> -- 
> David Singer 
> Apple Computer/QuickTime