Re: textDecoration question

I don't think that's correct, since it doesn't account for the fact that
the appearance of the 1, 2, or 3 tokens (when the value isn't none) is in
an arbitrary order.

That is, the legal values are:

none
underline
noUnderline
lineThrough
noLineThrough
overline
noOverline
noUnderline noLineThrough
noLineThrough noUnderline
noUnderline lineThrough
lineThrough noUnderline
underline noLineThrough
noLineThrough underline
underline lineThrough
lineThrough underline
noUnderline noOverline
noOverline noUnderline
noUnderline overline
overline noUnderline
underline noOverline
noOverline underline
underline overline
overline underline
noUnderline noLineThrough noOverline
noUnderline noOverline noLineThrough
noLineThrough noUnderline noOverline
noLineThrough noOverline noUnderline
noOverline noUnderline noLineThrough
noOverline noLineThrough noUnderline
noUnderline noLineThrough overline
noUnderline overline noLineThrough
noLineThrough noUnderline overline
noLineThrough overline noUnderline
overline noUnderline noLineThrough
overline noLineThrough noUnderline
noUnderline lineThrough noOverline
noUnderline noOverline lineThrough
lineThrough noUnderline noOverline
lineThrough noOverline noUnderline
noOverline noUnderline lineThrough
noOverline lineThrough noUnderline
noUnderline lineThrough overline
noUnderline overline lineThrough
lineThrough noUnderline overline
lineThrough overline noUnderline
overline noUnderline lineThrough
overline lineThrough noUnderline
underline noLineThrough noOverline
underline noOverline noLineThrough
noLineThrough underline noOverline
noLineThrough noOverline underline
noOverline underline noLineThrough
noOverline noLineThrough underline
underline noLineThrough overline
underline overline noLineThrough
noLineThrough underline overline
noLineThrough overline underline
overline underline noLineThrough
overline noLineThrough underline
underline lineThrough noOverline
underline noOverline lineThrough
lineThrough underline noOverline
lineThrough noOverline underline
noOverline underline lineThrough
noOverline lineThrough underline
underline lineThrough overline
underline overline lineThrough
lineThrough underline overline
lineThrough overline underline
overline underline lineThrough
overline lineThrough underline





On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 12:37 PM, Michael Dolan <mdolan@newtbt.com> wrote:

> Feel free to use this:****
>
> ** **
>
>             <xs:simpleType name="textDecoration">****
>
>                         <xs:restriction base="xs:string">****
>
>                                     <xs:pattern value="none|((underline|noUnderline)|(lineThrough|noLineThrough)|(overline|noOverline))|((underline|noUnderline)
> (lineThrough|noLineThrough))|((lineThrough|noLineThrough)
> (overline|noOverline))|((lineThrough|noLineThrough)
> (overline|noOverline))|((underline|noUnderline) (lineThrough|noLineThrough)
> (overline|noOverline))"/>****
>
>                         </xs:restriction>****
>
>             </xs:simpleType>****
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* Glenn Adams [mailto:glenn@skynav.com]
> *Sent:* Monday, May 13, 2013 10:33 AM
> *To:* Michael Dolan
>
> *Cc:* public-tt
> *Subject:* Re: textDecoration question****
>
> ** **
>
> Just added a note (in 8.2.19) and changed schema data type to xs:string.**
> **
>
> ** **
>
> On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 8:45 AM, Michael Dolan <mdolan@newtbt.com> wrote:*
> ***
>
> I’d suggest adding text clarifying this and of course, the schema should
> be fixed.****
>
>  ****
>
> *From:* Glenn Adams [mailto:glenn@skynav.com]
> *Sent:* Sunday, May 12, 2013 5:50 PM
> *To:* Michael A Dolan
> *Cc:* public-tt
> *Subject:* Re: textDecoration question****
>
>  ****
>
>  ****
>
> On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 6:00 PM, Michael A Dolan <mdolan@newtbt.com>
> wrote:****
>
> The prose for this attribute is not clear whether combinations of the
> pairs of attributes can be used.  The examples show only a single value at
> a time – e.g. either underline or lineThrough.****
>
>  ****
>
> The syntax is constructed in an unusual manner if the intent was to only
> permit a single value.  The schema is currently an enumeration, forcing
> only a single value.****
>
>  ****
>
> To understand the notation, you have to trace back to XSL-FO and thence to
> CSS 2. See [1].****
>
>  ****
>
> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS2/about.html#value-defs****
>
>  ****
>
> Specifically:****
>
>  ****
>
> A double bar (||) separates two or more options: one or more of them must
> occur, in any order.****
>
>  ****
>
> This would probably be more clear if someone hadn't removed the references
> to the XSL-FO definitions upon which the properties were based, though you
> can still trace it via Appendix J.2 Attribute Derivation [2].****
>
>  ****
>
> [2]
> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/ttml/raw-file/default/ttml10/spec/ttaf1-dfxp.html#attribute-vocab-derivation-table
> ****
>
>  ****
>
> In any case, the intent is *not* to permit a single value, e.g.,
> "underline overline noLineThrough" is a valid value.****
>
>  ****
>
>  ****
>
> If the schema is correct, then one can never apply both underline and
> lineThrough concurrently – e.g. textDecoration=”underline lineThrough”.***
> *
>
>  ****
>
> Does the schema reflect the intent?  If so, then why the odd construction
> of the syntax in the prose?****
>
>  ****
>
> Thanks,****
>
>  ****
>
>                 Mike****
>
>  ****
>
> Michael A DOLAN****
>
> Television Broadcast Technology, Inc****
>
> PO Box 190, Del Mar, CA 92014 USA****
>
> +1-858-882-7497 (m)****
>
>  ****
>
>  ****
>
> ** **
>