- From: Pierre-Anthony Lemieux <pal@sandflow.com>
- Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2015 09:51:35 -0800
- To: Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com>
- Cc: David Singer <singer@apple.com>, TTWG <public-tt@w3.org>
> SMPTE needs to present a viable use case for such a feature The fact that this is a specification in use today should be sufficient, a priori. In other words, ST 428-7 could be wrong, but I would not assume that without clear evidence. > add a new issue specifically requesting negative space along with use case documentation Hmmmm. the tts:{ipd,bpd} feature was proposed with the SMPTE liaison as the sole documented requirement, but fails to meet it... so I do not think closing the issue can be a reasonable course of action. If TTWG has concerns/questions about this and other ST 428-7 features, TTWG should simply collect them and ask for SMPTE's input. ITTWG can incorporate SMPTE's feedback (if any) in its final disposition. Best, -- Pierre On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 9:38 AM, Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com> wrote: > > > On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 10:33 AM, Pierre-Anthony Lemieux <pal@sandflow.com> > wrote: >> >> > correct; that use case (dubious at best) is not supported by this >> > feature; >> >> Well... this feature is presumably in use (ST 428-7 being in use >> worldwide), so I do not think TTWG can reasonably call it dubious. If >> TTWG has concerns/questions, TTWG should simply ask SMPTE. In the >> meantime, I have reopened ticket #237. > > > SMPTE needs to present a viable use case for such a feature before I'll > consider it; it would be better to leave 237 closed, and add a new issue > specifically requesting negative space along with use case documentation > >> >> >> >> >> >it specifies a fixed dimension in inline or block progression; >> >> What does "inline dimensions" do for a <div>, which is in block >> progression? > > > every area generated by content elements has both inline and block > progression dimensions; constraining the ipd of a div would constrain it in > the horizontal axis in a horizontal writing mode > >> >> >> Thanks, >> >> -- Pierre >> >> On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 9:28 AM, Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com> wrote: >> > >> > >> > On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 10:17 AM, Pierre-Anthony Lemieux >> > <pal@sandflow.com> >> > wrote: >> >> >> >> > that is a special case of the specified feature >> >> >> >> The mechanism specified in the SMPTE liaison allows for negative >> >> dimensions and notes "Negative values shall be allowed but should be >> >> used with care as characters could overlap." >> >> >> >> The proposed tts:inlineLength/ipd does not allow negative dimensions. >> > >> > >> > correct; that use case (dubious at best) is not supported by this >> > feature; >> > you could use negative letter spacing between glyphs as an alternative >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> Also, if tts:inlineLength/ipd is intended to add/substract space in >> >> the inline progression, how would it work on <div>, which is in block >> >> progression? >> > >> > >> > it doesn't add/subtract space; it specifies a fixed dimension in inline >> > or >> > block progression; it applies to all content elements; >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> Thanks, >> >> >> >> -- Pierre >> >> >> >> On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 9:06 AM, Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com> wrote: >> >> > >> >> > On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 10:02 AM, Pierre-Anthony Lemieux >> >> > <pal@sandflow.com> >> >> > wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> Hi Glenn, >> >> >> >> >> >> Thanks for the pointer. >> >> >> >> >> >> The SMPTE liaison referenced in the ticker described "a mechanism to >> >> >> insert a variable amount of space in the middle of a rendered text >> >> >> string". >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > that is a special case of the specified feature >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Is the idea to use an empty <span> with tts:inlineLength/ipd equal >> >> >> to >> >> >> the desired amount of space? >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > yes >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Why is the block progression attribute needed? >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > symmetry >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Thanks, >> >> >> >> >> >> -- Pierre >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 8:46 AM, Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com> >> >> >> wrote: >> >> >> > >> >> >> > On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 9:38 AM, Pierre-Anthony Lemieux >> >> >> > <pal@sandflow.com> >> >> >> > wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > tts:{ipd,bpd} are used to specify constraints on the dimensions >> >> >> >> > of >> >> >> >> > areas >> >> >> >> > generated by content elements >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> This is in addition to region height/width, or instead, or >> >> >> >> something >> >> >> >> else? >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Is there a ticket related to this feature? >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > not a new feature: just a name change from what was introduced as >> >> >> > the >> >> >> > solution for ISSUE-237 [1] >> >> >> > >> >> >> > [1] http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/tracker/issues/237 >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Best, >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- Pierre >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 8:12 AM, Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com> >> >> >> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> > ipd = inline progression dimension >> >> >> >> > bpd = block progression dimension >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > 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 >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > 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. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> > >> > > >
Received on Tuesday, 27 January 2015 17:52:26 UTC