Re: textDecoration question

On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 9:23 PM, Michael Dolan <mdolan@newtbt.com> wrote:

> Indeed, this is explicit.****
>
> ** **
>
> So, do a bit of copy/paste with the regex and we’re there….
>

Done. [1][2]

[1]
https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/ttml/raw-file/default/ttml10/spec/xsd/ttaf1-dfxp-datatypes.xsd
[2]
https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/ttml/raw-file/default/ttml10/spec/rnc/ttaf1-dfxp-datatypes.rnc


> ****
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* Glenn Adams [mailto:glenn@skynav.com]
> *Sent:* Monday, May 13, 2013 8:17 PM
>
> *To:* Michael Dolan
> *Cc:* public-tt
> *Subject:* Re: textDecoration question****
>
> ** **
>
> CSS 2.1 Section 1.4.2.1****
>
> ** **
>
> A double bar (||) separates two or more options: one or more of them must
> occur, in any order.****
>
> ** **
>
> On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 8:02 PM, Michael Dolan <mdolan@newtbt.com> wrote:*
> ***
>
> Although I agree the order it not relevant, how does one infer that from
> the defined syntax which is clearly ordered?****
>
>  ****
>
> *From:* Glenn Adams [mailto:glenn@skynav.com]
> *Sent:* Monday, May 13, 2013 4:26 PM****
>
>
> *To:* Michael Dolan
> *Cc:* public-tt
> *Subject:* 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)****
>
>  ****
>
>  ****
>
>  ****
>
>  ****
>
> ** **
>