- From: Pierre-Anthony Lemieux <pal@sandflow.com>
- Date: Fri, 23 May 2014 08:22:25 -0700
- To: Nigel Megitt <nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk>
- Cc: Timed Text Working Group <public-tt@w3.org>
Hi Nigel, > This does not take into account sub-pixel positioning of anti-aliased text, > which would result in different per-pixel buffer values for a glyph that > would otherwise be considered identical using the current criteria. Not all implementations will support "sub-pixel positioning of anti-aliased text". Implementations that choose to support that feature, and thus will not be able to use a glyph buffer, will need to implement a correspondingly higher glyph rendering rate to accommodate documents compliant with the IMSC Text Profile. Best, -- Pierre On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 4:13 AM, Timed Text Working Group Issue Tracker <sysbot+tracker@w3.org> wrote: > ISSUE-318 (HRM glyph copy assumes no sub-pixel positioning): Hypothetical Render Model glyph copy assumes no sub-pixel positioning [TTML IMSC 1.0] > > http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/tracker/issues/318 > > Raised by: Nigel Megitt > On product: TTML IMSC 1.0 > > IMSC 1 FPWD includes in the Hypothetical Render Model a test for how two glyphs can be considered identical for buffer copying purposes. This does not take into account sub-pixel positioning of anti-aliased text, which would result in different per-pixel buffer values for a glyph that would otherwise be considered identical using the current criteria. > > For presentation devices that layout text using sub-pixel accuracy and render glyphs with anti-aliasing this test of identity will fail resulting in wrongly painted glyphs. > > I propose that an extra criterion is added to the glyph identity test that the post-layout sub-pixel offset relative to the pixel grid, horizontally and vertically, is identical. > > [1] https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/ttml/raw-file/ea1a92310a27/ttml-ww-profiles/ttml-ww-profiles.html#paint-text > > >
Received on Friday, 23 May 2014 15:23:15 UTC