- From: Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com>
- Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2015 09:42:57 -0700
- To: David Singer <singer@apple.com>
- Cc: TTWG <public-tt@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CACQ=j+ek3XrD3HViBn7jqQ6gpKRgkLZzJRz-U6fHeTfHGWuWAw@mail.gmail.com>
these terms {inline progression dimension, block progression dimension} are well established, at least in the XSL-FO domain, and we use them 20 times in the TTML1 spec; if folks don't like the abbreviated names, I can expand to the full names, which would end up being tts:inlineProgressionDimension tts:blockProgressionDimension i don't want to rename them due to their existing usage and presence of formal definitions, as that may lead to further confusion the abbreviated names seemed a good compromise to me; given they will be used only infrequently, authors should be able to handle this usage On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 9:34 AM, David Singer <singer@apple.com> wrote: > > > On Jan 27, 2015, at 17:12 , Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com> wrote: > > > > ipd = inline progression dimension > > bpd = block progression dimension > > ah, sorry, I thought d = direction. > > > > > they are the writing mode relative counterparts to width and height; the > problem with the latter is that they are strongly associated with absolute > axes (horizontal and vertical), while the former {ipd,bpd} don't suffer > from that association > > > > it also requires less spec text and results in less confusion in the > spec, since in all places at present (except for line height), width and > height are interpreted in an absolute sense independent of writing mode > > > > tts:{ipd,bpd} are used to specify constraints on the dimensions of areas > generated by content elements > > OK, but what is wrong with something a little less terse, such as > inlineLength and stackingLength? > > > > > On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 7:37 AM, David Singer <singer@apple.com> wrote: > > yikes > > > > it’s nice if the terms are readable. Linewidth and Lineheight have some > … recognition, albeit mostly in writing systems that use horizontal lines > assembled into vertical blocks. > > > > ipd and bpd are directions, not measurements, aren’t they? and they > don’t exactly roll off the tongue or leap to mind in terms of > recognizability > > > > > On Jan 26, 2015, at 1:01 , Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com> wrote: > > > > > > The use of width and height as writing mode relative properties is > confusing. Change their names to ipd and bpd, abbreviations for inline > progression dimension and block progression dimension, respectively, and > document convention that width and height (as well as horizontal and > vertical) are always absolute and not writing mode relative. The only > exception being that 'height' in lineHeight remains writing mode relative, > i.e., specifies the nominal bpd of a line area. > > > > > > Change image to use tts:extent instead of the former > tts:{width,height} in order to use absolute axes in expressing explicit > image dimensions. > > > > > > Addressed above comments in [1]. > > > > > > [1] https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/ttml/rev/69877acd9380 > > > > David Singer > > Manager, Software Standards, Apple Inc. > > > > > > > > David Singer > Manager, Software Standards, Apple Inc. > >
Received on Tuesday, 27 January 2015 16:43:54 UTC