- From: Pierre-Anthony Lemieux <pal@sandflow.com>
- Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2019 22:43:17 -0700
- To: Gary Katsevman <me@gkatsev.com>
- Cc: Cyril Concolato <cconcolato@netflix.com>, Philippe Le Hégaret <plh@w3.org>, Nigel Megitt <nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk>, TTWG <public-tt@w3.org>
Hi Gary et al., In recent publications the group has gone to great lengths to make sure that at least two implementations passed each test, whether for exotic or trivial features. Why would it be different here? Have the criteria changed? Should future versions of TTML and WebVTT have to meet a lower threshold of "proof-of-concept"? I think the group needs to be consistent, one way or another. Best, -- Pierre On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 10:32 PM Gary Katsevman <me@gkatsev.com> wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 4:15 PM Pierre-Anthony Lemieux <pal@sandflow.com> wrote: >> >> "Text combine upright: These are all implementation issues. The >> text-combine-upright CSS property hasn't been whitelisted by them." >> >> Does it mean that there is not two implementations that pass the test? > > > text-combine-upright is made available to WebVTT via the CSS extension "feature". Currently, no browser allows this CSS property but I have a proof-of-concept in vtt.js. Given that other CSS properties are allowed and available in multiple implementation, I think this is an implementation issue and should not block the spec.
Received on Thursday, 13 June 2019 05:43:47 UTC