Re: text-wrap balance

From: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com<mailto:silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>>
Date: Wednesday, 19 June 2019 at 12:43
To: "David (Standards) Singer" <singer@apple.com<mailto:singer@apple.com>>
Cc: Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com<mailto:glenn@skynav.com>>, Nigel Megitt <nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk<mailto:nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk>>, Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org<mailto:plh@w3.org>>, Pierre-Anthony Lemieux <pal@sandflow.com<mailto:pal@sandflow.com>>, Gary Katsevman <me@gkatsev.com<mailto:me@gkatsev.com>>, Cyril Concolato <cconcolato@netflix.com<mailto:cconcolato@netflix.com>>, Public TTWG List <public-tt@w3.org<mailto:public-tt@w3.org>>
Subject: Re: text-wrap balance



On Wed., 19 Jun. 2019, 5:46 pm David Singer, <singer@apple.com<mailto:singer@apple.com>> wrote:


> On Jun 19, 2019, at 9:33 , Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com<mailto:silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wed., 19 Jun. 2019, 1:45 pm Glenn Adams, <glenn@skynav.com<mailto:glenn@skynav.com>> wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 6:02 PM Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com<mailto:silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 10:32 PM David Singer <singer@apple.com<mailto:singer@apple.com>> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Jun 18, 2019, at 14:19 , Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com<mailto: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?

There’s no need to characterise this as a TTML vs WebVTT issue. It’s not a value judgement about whether or not balance  is needed as a feature, it’s about the fact that there’s a MUST requirement to do something whose specification is unstable, i.e. essentially what David said already. Conversely to your question, if there were a judgement that text-wrap: balance is something we could not live without, then we might be holding WebVTT to a different standard than TTML, but I don’t think anybody is suggesting that.

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.

That’s exactly what we already agreed to do, as recorded in https://github.com/w3c/webvtt/issues/455 .

Kind regards,

Nigel





> 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.