Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Clarify that tts:fillLineGap does not hide characters #283

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

palemieux
Copy link
Contributor

Close #254

@palemieux palemieux added this to the imsc1.0.1 PR milestone Nov 9, 2017
@palemieux palemieux self-assigned this Nov 9, 2017
Copy link

@andreastai andreastai left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Good! Works for me.

Copy link
Contributor

@nigelmegitt nigelmegitt left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This PR does what we agreed, but I now think that what we agreed is wrong, unfortunately.

@@ -995,6 +995,10 @@ <h4>itts:fillLineGap</h4>
<code>p</code> element SHALL extend to the <em>before-edge</em> and <em>after-edge</em> of its containing line area
(<em>before-edge</em> and <em>after-edge</em> are defined at Section 4.2.3 of [[XSL11]]).</p>

<p class='note'>The application of <code>itts:fillLineGap="true"</code> does not result in hiding any character glyphs that
would be visible without such application. Therefore after such application all parts of all character glyphs with a
background color behind them continue to have that background color applied.</p>
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

See #254 (comment) - I think there are cases when this wording is not correct, unfortunately.

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

From my view the text should stay as is, because it makes very clear what the effect is. Wordings that tries to deal with the edge case would confuse more than help. Therefore this edge case should not be part of the informative note.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Sorry @TairT I don't agree, we need to make a change so that the known "edge case" is either clearly excluded or is dealt with in the text.

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

No problem, @nigelmegitt.

Please provide a font and a character code point where you can see the behaviour of this edge case. Then we could make an example with images that demonstrates the behaviour.

We could also change the text as follows:

Therefore after such application all parts of all characters continue to have the background color that is applied to their span or anonymous span parent.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

OK I'll look for an example. I can not see how the proposed text at #283 (comment) addresses the problem though.

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I can not see how the proposed text at #283 (comment) addresses the problem though.

Ok. The background color value of a glyph is the background color that a character gets from a span parent or the "anonymous span". This color (and not the potential color of a block container), is applied to the gyph.

Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@nigelmegitt If this did not help, can you be specific what part you do not understand?

OK I'll look for an example.

Did you find a font and a character?

@palemieux palemieux closed this Dec 14, 2017
@palemieux palemieux deleted the issue-254-clarify-fillLineGap branch February 15, 2018 18:43
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

3 participants