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