Re: Publishing WebVTT as a Proposed Recommendation (CfC)

Hi all,

To clarify what is happening here:

text-combine-upright is a feature that is widely implemented in web
browsers, see
https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/CSS/text-combine-upright .

When WebVTT was looking at Ruby features, this css feature didn't exist and
was therefore not white listed for WebVTT.

What Gary is saying is that this white listing still has to happen. It's a
simple fix to add it to the list of white listed CSS features to make this
work in Web browsers.

Gary: did you register bugs on the browsers for it? Did you get any
rejections?

Also, if it's implemented in vtt.js, then Firefox supports it. In addition,
your demo implementation supports it. Wouldn't that be two implementations?

Cheers,
Silvia.



On Thu., 13 Jun. 2019, 8:37 pm Nigel Megitt, <nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk> wrote:

> From: Gary Katsevman <me@gkatsev.com>
> Date: Thursday, 13 June 2019 at 06:32
> To: Pierre-Anthony Lemieux <pal@sandflow.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
> >
> Subject: Re: Publishing WebVTT as a Proposed Recommendation (CfC)
>
> 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.
>
>
> In general non-implementation of a feature very much does block
> progression to PR. That’s what the CR exit criteria say. If
> text-combine-upright is a specification feature and we cannot demonstrate
> its implementation in two independent implementations, it cannot go through
> as a normative provision in PR.
>
> Is this feature already present in another Rec so that we can effectively
> include it by reference and know it has been through the W3C process? We
> have historically only tested incremental additions, but in this case the
> CR exit criteria do not make any provision for this – they imply that every
> feature must have two implementations that pass reasonable tests.
>
>