FWIW, I think asking a status update from the CSS group on this particular feature would be great. Cheers, Silvia. On Thu., 13 Jun. 2019, 9:09 pm Philippe Le Hégaret, <plh@w3.org> wrote: > > > On 6/12/2019 10:43 PM, Pierre-Anthony Lemieux wrote: > > 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. > > I thought the exit criteria was 2 implementations of each feature. There > is a difference between tests and features. > > However, I'm not suggesting that the difference matters in this > particular test, given that the spec is clear on this particular test. > If the value balance isn't supported today, what are the implementations > doing instead of balance? Chromium doesn't seem to have a bug report on > balance for example. Should we ask the CSS Working Group on the status > and stability of balance? (Gary, I'm happy to go on fact findings if > you'd like) > > Philippe > >
Received on Thursday, 13 June 2019 20:33:54 UTC