- From: Philippe Le Hégaret <plh@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2019 13:39:06 -0400
- To: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
- Cc: Pierre-Anthony Lemieux <pal@sandflow.com>, Gary Katsevman <me@gkatsev.com>, Cyril Concolato <cconcolato@netflix.com>, Nigel Megitt <nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk>, TTWG <public-tt@w3.org>
Forwarding here with permission: -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: text-wrap balance Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2019 09:45:37 -0400 From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org> To: Philippe Le Hégaret <plh@w3.org>, Fuqiao Xue <xfq@w3.org> On 2019-06-13 16:55, Philippe Le Hégaret wrote: > Chris, Fuqiao, > > the Timed Text Group/WebVTT is wondering what to do with text-wrap: > balance. Do you know or can you find the story behind it? WebVTT > relies on that value but if no one implements it, there isn't much > point... text-wrap: balance (and no-wrap) was proposed for CSS by Adobe. There used to be a proposal on their site [1] but that has disappeared. It is not in CSS Text 3 but was added to CSS Text 4 [2][3] and Adobe also maintains a JQuery plugin [4] which implements it. There are no wpt tests for the text-wrap property [5] I have seen other implementations of line-balancing in JS. Other plugins or polyfils will be easier once Houdini provides the ability to measure the length of a line. There are a couple of open issues: [6][7][8][9]. From [7], Apple seems to be slightly against due to the iterative algorithm (number of passes is unknown, and interaction with text fragmentation is unclear). Current status seems to be a bunch of web developer interest, no implementer interest. The spec might be improved by a couple of good, visual examples. Needs evangelism to demonstrate need, I suspect. [1] https://adobe-webplatform.github.io/balance-text/proposal/index.html [2] https://www.w3.org/TR/css-text-4/#text-wrap Sept 2018 [3] https://drafts.csswg.org/css-text-4/#text-wrap [4] https://github.com/adobe/balance-text [5] https://github.com/web-platform-tests/wpt/tree/master/css/css-text [6] https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/3047 (from frivoal <https://github.com/frivoal>) [7] https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/2528 (from tobireif) <https://github.com/tobireif> [8] https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/1975 (from palemieux <https://github.com/palemieux>) [9] https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/803 (from frivoal <https://github.com/frivoal>) On 6/13/2019 4:33 PM, Silvia Pfeiffer wrote: > 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 Friday, 14 June 2019 17:39:11 UTC