Re: Objections to TPAC resolutions on IMSC1.1

On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 10:44 AM, David Singer <singer@mac.com> wrote:

>
>
> > On Nov 27, 2017, at 17:58 , Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 6:49 PM, David Singer <singer@mac.com> wrote:
> > Thank you for confirming both that this is existing practice and that we
> need to stop diverging from the web community.
> >
> > We can't diverge from the web community when the web community has no
> solution.
>
> If you have a proposed solution, this is clearly not the case. Propose it
> in the right place, don’t do it on the side.
>

Since we are already proposing the necessary requirements to the CSSWG,
this is already the case. However, it has also been proposed that we adopt
(in some fashion) certain solutions with minimum (or no) behavioral change
(though perhaps syntactic change), namely

   - fillLineGap
   - linePadding
   - multi{Row}Align

If the CSSWG can write solutions for these into (at least) a CR in the next
few months, then I'm sure we could employ a normative reference to such
definition(s). However, if they cannot, i.e., if using such a reference
would amount to a significant delay in the TTML2 publishing schedule, then
we will likely be pressured to move ahead independently. Further, given the
desire to maintain behavioral functionality, it is far from certain what
the CSSWG might do to define a solution that covers the documented
requirements.



>
> > And besides that, I think you don't want to go down this rat-hole,
> otherwise, I might have to raise the spectacle of VTT vs TTML. Talk about
> divergence.
>
> “Tu quoque”, seriously? And not even applicable.
>
> >
> >
> > Dave Singer (iPhone)
> >
> > On Nov 27, 2017, at 17:37, Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 5:18 PM, David Singer <singer@mac.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> > On Nov 27, 2017, at 10:45 , Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Given that such an addition to CSS would require years to obtain in a
> REC, it is entirely impractical to use this rationale with TTML2 (and
> probably TTML3).
> >> >
> >>
> >> I read this, perhaps wrongly (and if so, please correct me) that the
> timed text group can, and should, invent styling mechanisms that are
> different from, or absent from, CSS, because they can move faster.  If this
> is what you mean, I disagree in almost every respect, and in particular, if
> something is needed for styling text in general, it belongs in CSS.  *Only*
> if the styling is caption-specific and irrelevant in all other contexts,
> should the captioning language invent new styling.
> >>
> >> Since this (invent styling mechanisms as needed) is the status quo for
> this group and for TTML in particular, what you suggest is a departure from
> existing practice, and not the other way around.
> >>
> >>
> >> David Singer
> >>
> >> singer@mac.com
> >>
> >>
> >
>
> David Singer
>
> singer@mac.com
>
>