Application semantics of text decoration.

[skynavga]

§10.2.43 specifies the semantics of application (applies) as

to apply to glyph areas or other inline areas

language that has been present since TTML1 1ed [1]. However, a review of both XSL 1.1 [1] and CSS2.1 [3] calls into question the reference to "or other inline areas", which, with the exception of the blink value, is clearly applied by both specifications only to glyph areas (text). Since TTML does not support the blink value, the semantics of application are essentially limited to application to glyph areas, and not inline areas that are not glyph areas. In order to address the ambiguity created by stating that text decoration applies to something that it cannot logically apply to, it is recommended that "or other inline areas" be removed.

[1] https://www.w3.org/TR/2010/REC-ttaf1-dfxp-20101118/#style-attribute-textDecoration
[2] https://www.w3.org/TR/2006/REC-xsl11-20061205/#text-decoration
[3] https://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/text.html#propdef-text-decoration

[skynavga]

Labeling this as an editorial issue since it removes text that cannot have any semantic affect on conformance.

[nigelmegitt]

I'm not hugely supportive of marking this as editorial; it could be argued that this change falls under class 3 in the list at https://www.w3.org/2019/Process-20190301/#correction-classes rather than class 2.

I don't have any problem with the pull request but given the nature of this please do not merge this early, and leave the pull request open for the usual 2 week period @skynavga .

[skynavga]

Please note that I have not been closing any PRs early, regardless of whether they are editorial or not. We are not presently operating under a expedited processing protocol.

[skynavga]

As an additional note to your point about this being editorial, keep in mind that if we label a change as substantive, then we will need to either (1) create at least one test case or (2) prepare an argument for the director for the PR transition as to why the change is untestable.

For this case (and others like it), I believe it will be easier to construct an argument for why a change is editorial than why it is substantive but untestable. Of course, there may be some changes that inevitably fall into this latter category.

[nigelmegitt]

@skynavga I agree with your analysis. In this case I also cannot see how we could create a test to see if a line area had been affected or not.

On the point about review time, I think there is consensus in TTWG that for simple editorial changes with approval there is no need to wait for the whole 2 week period before merging, unless someone asks for extra review time. That was why I asked for it in this case.