- From: Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com>
- Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2015 08:31:11 -0700
- To: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
- Cc: Nigel Megitt <nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk>, Public TTWG List <public-tt@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CACQ=j+ezHc=33riCHi+6nm6A=KeTx4qpnf9S9Si67K7EwjbZag@mail.gmail.com>
On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 8:01 AM, Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com> wrote: > > On 16 Jan 2015 15:40, "Nigel Megitt" <nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk> wrote: > > > > From: Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com> Date: Friday, 16 January 2015 14:33 > > > >> We could also upgrade @region to IDREFS, like @style, in which case, if > more than one of the referenced regions is semantically active, i.e., > condition is not false on multiple referenced regions, we could define > behavior as one of: > >> use the first (and only first) referenced region that is semantically > active; > > > > Seems like a good idea, as a minimum. > >> > >> select the content into all referenced regions that are semantically > active; > > > > I don't know a use case for this. > > FWIW: on the web, ID is semantically supposed to point to 1 or 0 elements, > not to more. I'd highly recommend for the first option to avoid confusions. > The distinction is between IDREF and IDREFS. The former points exactly one element (not zero). The latter points at one or more elements. We already have a few attributes typed as IDREFS, such as @animate, @style, and @ttm:agent. The idea being discussed here is upgrading @region from IDREF to IDREFS so that it may reference multiple region elements, some (or all but one) of which may be semantically excluded by @condition. The only question in my mind was whether the interpretation of @region with more than one non-null, i.e., more than one non-conditionally-excluded, region references should mean (1) use first non-null region, or (2) use all non-null regions (i.e., map the same content to the multiple non-null regions). I have a preference for the latter interpretation for the sake of symmetry. > Cheers, > Silvia. > > > > > > >> > >> On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 7:18 AM, Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com> wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 2:52 AM, Timed Text Working Group Issue > Tracker <sysbot+tracker@w3.org> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> ISSUE-366 (condition vs xml:id): xml:id uniqueness needs to be broken > for some uses of condition [TTML2] > >>>> > >>>> http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/tracker/issues/366 > >>>> > >>>> Raised by: Nigel Megitt > >>>> On product: TTML2 > >>>> > >>>> Consider the use case in which an author wishes to permit the viewer > of a TTML2 document to select from one of a number of style choices, either > depending on a parameter or a media query, for example choices that vary > tts:fontSize and tts:extent to accommodate 'normal size font', 'large size > font' and 'small size font' options. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> The condition attribute can only be used to omit an element from > semantic processing, not to change its behaviour. One might imagine that > the following is a way to proceed: > >>>> > >>>> ... > >>>> <layout> > >>>> <region xml:id="r1" condition="parameter(text_size)=='large size > font'" tts:extent="95vw 30vh" .../> > >>>> <region xml:id="r1" condition="parameter(text_size)=='normal size > font'" tts:extent="80vw 20vh" .../> > >>>> <region xml:id="r1" condition="parameter(text_size)=='small size > font'" tts:extent="60vw 15vh" .../> > >>>> </layout> > >>>> <styling> > >>>> <style xml:id="sFontSize" condition="parameter(text_size)=='large > size font'" tts:fontSize="15vh"/> > >>>> <style xml:id="sFontSize" condition="parameter(text_size)=='normal > size font'" tts:fontSize="10vh"/> > >>>> <style xml:id="sFontSize" condition="parameter(text_size)=='small > size font'" tts:fontSize="7.5vh"/> > >>>> <style xml:id="sDefaultFont" style="sFontSize" > tts:fontFamily="myFontFamily"/> > >>>> </styling> > >>>> > >>>> ... > >>>> > >>>> <body> > >>>> <div region="r1" style="sDefaultFont"> > >>>> ... > >>>> </div> > >>>> </body> > >>> > >>> > >>> Condition is not intended to be used like #ifdef | #ifndef, i.e., as a > syntactic inclusion/exclusion system, but as semantic inclusion/exclusion > only. There are perfectly good alternatives to the above that do not > require duplicating ids, such as: > >>> > >>> <styling> > >>> <style xml:id="s0" tts:fontFamily="myFontFamily"/> > >>> <style xml:id="s1" condition="parameter(text_size)=='large size font'" > tts:fontSize="15vh" tts:extent="95vw 30vh"/> > >>> <style xml:id="s2" condition="parameter(text_size)=='normal size > font'" tts:fontSize="10vh" tts:extent="80vw 20vh"/> > >>> <style xml:id="s3" condition="parameter(text_size)=='small size font'" > tts:fontSize="7.5vh" tts:extent="60vw 15vh"/> > >>> </styling> > >>> > >>> <layout> > >>> <region xml:id="r1" style="s0 s1 s2 s3"/> > >>> </layout> > >>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> However this construct, which requires use of xml:id for style and > region reference, breaks xml:id uniqueness rules, resulting in invalid > documents. What options are there for achieving this use case? I can see: > >>>> > >>>> a) repeating all the content in the document with different style and > region references and specifying condition only on the content, > >>>> > >>>> b) basing everything on the initial element and making that > conditional (since nothing needs to refer to initial by xml:id), and > specifying all regions inline - unfortunately this may be very verbose in > terms of repeating regions on many content elements, but it could work for > cases where there are only a few regions and they can be associated with > body or div elements. > >>>> > >>>> Neither of these two options is particularly attractive - a) is > highly repetitious and offers no advantage over the provision of multiple > documents with any associated costs for asset management and distribution > there. b) is limited in basing style on initial so it is a 'one chance' > condition, and it is potentially repetitious in region definition. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> By the way, there are at least three audience groups for which this > use case exists: 1) Those who have reading difficulties with normal size > text; 2) users of different devices, where it has been established that > text needs to be rendered at different sizes on large screen televisions > from smartphones for example; 3) those who just want to be able to > customise the display. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> It would be great if the condition construct could be used to allow > some predefined viewing options to be authored into the document, i.e. in a > controlled way by the document author. I can't see how this can be achieved > at present though. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> What solution choices are there? Perhaps the easiest is to redefine > the condition construct so that it also includes an 'if then else if' > syntax in which attributes can be defined, so you might end up with, for > example: > >>>> > >>>> <region xml:id="r1" condition="if parameter(text_size)=='large size > font' then (tts:extent='95vw 30vh' elseif parameter(text_size)='normal size > font' then (tts:extent='80vw 20vh') elseif parameter(text_size)='small size > font' then (tts:extent='60vw 15vh') else (tts:extent='80vw 20vh')"/> > >>>> > >>>> Then xml:id rules are not broken and region r1 can be referenced > safely with the attribute evaluation only being conditional. I'd advocate > retaining the ability to specify a condition that can be used to exclude > the entire element from semantic processing, as now. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Another solution to this problem might be to define some > preprocessing using XPath to select specific elements and/or attributes and > set values on the basis of the same condition functions that have already > been specified, i.e. parameter, media, supports. Something like: > >>>> > >>>> <tt:tt [parameters etc]> > >>>> <preprocess> > >>>> <rule condition="parameter(text_size)=='large size text'" > path="//region[@xml:id='r1']"> > >>>> <attributes tts:extent="95vw 30vh"> > >>>> </rule> > >>>> </preprocess> > >>>> <head> > >>>> <layout><region xml:id="r1"/></layout> > >>>> ... > >>>> > >>>> It would be an error for a path attribute to refer to anywhere except > <head> or <body> or their descendants. > >>>> > >>>> This option would also have the incidental effect that it would > provide similar functionality to declarative styling. All the rules would > be executed in document order prior to processing the <head>. Preprocessing > could of course also be performed externally to the document before > processing, if a 'user style' is desirable (as is the case for any XML > document) . > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>> > >> >
Received on Friday, 16 January 2015 15:31:58 UTC