Re: text-wrap balance

On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 4:43 AM Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
wrote:

>
>
> On Wed., 19 Jun. 2019, 5:46 pm David Singer, <singer@apple.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> > On Jun 19, 2019, at 9:33 , Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Wed., 19 Jun. 2019, 1:45 pm Glenn Adams, <glenn@skynav.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 6:02 PM Silvia Pfeiffer <
>> silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 10:32 PM David Singer <singer@apple.com> wrote:
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > > On Jun 18, 2019, at 14:19 , Silvia Pfeiffer <
>> silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > While I agree with this and also have no problem excluding this
>> from REC, is still like to encourage the CSS WG to continue with it.
>> Glenn's listing of existing deterministic algorithms in this space should
>> be enough to give us an expectation that it's feasible and technically
>> possible.
>> > >
>> > > I’ve heard offline that people think that there are reasonable
>> algorithms too. That doesn’t make it specifiiable yet, tho.
>> >
>> > I don't follow: if it's been implemented and made replicable, it can
>> > be specified.
>> >
>> > Just because some algorithm can be specified doesn't mean it will be
>> specified in a form that permits a normative reference, particularly in a
>> reasonable amount of time. Are you willing to wait for 2 or 3 years to
>> elapse to get an algorithm written into a CSS spec, get it tested, and move
>> that spec to at least PR or REC before moving forward on VTT?
>> >
>> > We can wait if there's progress (not with REC, but we don't need it for
>> REC).
>>
>> we can’t go to Rec with the default being something that’s underspecified
>> and unimplemented, and we are way past needing to go to Rec.
>>
>
>
> Why would a missing balancing algorithm stop us from going to REC? It's
> not like the text can't be rendered in the traditional CSS fashion, which
> is what browsers do currently.
>
> Even more so if this feature isn't available in TTML either - why would we
> hold WebVTT to a higher standard than TTML?
>
> I think we are creating an unnecessary problem. Let's just take it out
> from REC and allow the document to move forward. This extra feature can
> then go into the next version.
>

+1

BTW, I would not support (and may object to) adding a balance keyword value
to tts:wrapOption in TTML, certainly in the next few years. Should CSS
fully specify an algorithm, and should such a specification make it to at
least PR, then I could revisit my position.


>
> Kind regards,
> Silvia.
>
>
>
>
> > An alternative would be to pick up your algorithm from TTML for WebVTT
>> as well. I don't mind which we do.
>>
>> sure.
>>
>> >
>> > Cheers,
>> > Silvia.
>> >
>>
>> David Singer
>> Manager, Software Standards, Apple Inc.
>>
>>