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

Default ruby position may be on the wrong side for tblr (eg. mongolian) #254

Closed
r12a opened this issue Feb 16, 2017 · 18 comments

Comments

Projects
None yet
7 participants
@r12a
Copy link

commented Feb 16, 2017

10.2.39 tts:rubyPosition
https://www.w3.org/TR/2016/WD-ttml2-20161117/#style-attribute-rubyPosition

before is mapped in the table to 'left' for 'tblr' writing mode (ie. Mongolian). before is also the default value. I think this is probably incorrect for tblr writing systems like Mongolian.

See an example of Mongolian ruby at w3c/mlreq#4

@dae-kim

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

commented Feb 23, 2017

Personally consider this to be a minor issue.

It's up to the author to determine that default values of any attribute do not align with their specific writing system/mode.

For example, the default value of displayAlign is "before". Given a large region, text would display towards top of screen. If authors want their text to display at bottom of any given region, they must explicitly set displayAlign to the appropriate value.

@r12a

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Author

commented Mar 7, 2017

I can't see why this would be a minor issue. The spec is setting a default value for people using vertical writing-mode with lines progressing from left to right that is incorrect for probably everyone who will use that. It means that people whose writing system uses that orientation, ie. users of Traditional Mongolian, Manchu, Sibe, Todo, etc., have to always override the default for any text they use, and probably no-one will ever need to use the default. I can't see how that makes sense.

Note that CSS makes a distinction between before and after, and over and under specifically to address this issue. In the case of vertical-lr, over means to the right of the vertical line, rather than to the left. And vice versa for under. In other words, things like ruby, overline, underline, etc. appear on the same side of the line for mongolian script vertical text as for CJK.

@dae-kim

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

commented Mar 7, 2017

As mentioned with my example on displayAlign and the default "before" ... most implementers explicitly set displayAlign to "after". So in terms of displayAlign's default value, most authors and consumers of TTML1 (and 2) probably consider "before" to be incorrect.

This does not stop authors from explicitly setting the displayAlign value to "after" by default.

I understand the default value is not ideal, but that does not stop an author from setting the proper value and achieving the correct display does it?

@dae-kim

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

commented Mar 14, 2017

To follow guidance on resolution to #240

@nigelmegitt

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

commented Mar 21, 2017

Scheduled for discussion 2017-03-23.

@nigelmegitt

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

commented Mar 23, 2017

Meeting 2017-03-23: See #240 (comment) - add a note about the ability to set preferred defaults.

@skynavga skynavga assigned skynavga and unassigned palemieux Apr 20, 2017

@skynavga skynavga removed their assignment May 11, 2017

@dae-kim dae-kim self-assigned this May 25, 2017

@dae-kim dae-kim closed this May 25, 2017

@dae-kim

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

commented May 25, 2017

See #332

@skynavga skynavga added this to the Editor's WR Work List milestone May 25, 2017

@nigelmegitt

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

commented May 26, 2017

This was a horizontal review comment and should not have been closed without feedback on the disposition from the issue raiser. @r12a does the merged pull request #332 address the issue adequately?

@nigelmegitt nigelmegitt reopened this May 26, 2017

@nigelmegitt nigelmegitt modified the milestones: Group's WR action required list, Editor's WR Work List May 26, 2017

@dae-kim

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

commented Jun 15, 2017

@nigelmegitt @r12a
During the TTWG call Richard attended, it was stated (agreed?) this issue would be handled the way #332 is resolved.

@dae-kim

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

commented Jul 7, 2017

@nigelmegitt
Given #254 (comment), I suggest we close.

@nigelmegitt

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

commented Jul 10, 2017

@dae-kim are you referring to your own comment where you're not sure that there was agreement as evidence that we should close this? You may well be right, however I'd be happier if @r12a could answer my question to him in #254 (comment) in which I explicitly ask if the resolution for #332 addresses this issue.

@r12a

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Author

commented Jul 10, 2017

There's no question that it's possible for Mongolian users to produce the behaviour they expect, by adding a setting to the document.

To be honest, however, i still expect that Mongolian authors, who are the natural users of tb-lr mode text, will be disappointed to have to make some effort every time, albeit small, so that the technology works in the way they would expect things to work by default. This clearly indicates to them that the technology was not designed with them in mind as primary users.

Is this enough to cause i18n to raise a formal objection? Probably not (however, i will need to defer to the i18n WG for a final decision on this). If you were to tell me that you had talked with content authors in Mongolia/China about their requirements, and they are not concerned, i would feel easier. I have to admit that i haven't had much feedback from Mongolia/China either, though, other than to confirm what their normal expectation for positioning ruby would be.

One practical point: #332 is resolved by a note in 10.2.48 tts:textEmphasis. This is about 10.2.39 tts:rubyPosition. Are we expecting to include another similar note here?

@nigelmegitt

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

commented Jul 10, 2017

Thanks for that @r12a - and yes, if we adopt the same kind of resolution as we did for #332 then we would need a similar note here.

@r12a

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Author

commented Aug 17, 2017

Please let us know if/when you have added the note referred to above, and we will close the pointer to this issue in our review tracker. Thanks.

@skynavga skynavga modified the milestones: Group's WR action required list, Editor's CR Work List Aug 21, 2017

@skynavga

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Collaborator

commented Aug 21, 2017

I18N WG has accepted and closed this issue in their review tracker.

@skynavga skynavga closed this Aug 21, 2017

@skynavga

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Collaborator

commented Aug 21, 2017

Got ahead of myself here, so reopening to address adding a note as mentioned above.

@skynavga skynavga reopened this Aug 21, 2017

@skynavga skynavga assigned skynavga and unassigned dae-kim Aug 21, 2017

skynavga added a commit that referenced this issue Aug 23, 2017

skynavga added a commit that referenced this issue Aug 23, 2017

Merge pull request #409 from w3c/issue-0254-ruby-position-default
Add note clarifying typical Mongolian usage pattern with ruby position (#254). Merge editorial change.

@skynavga skynavga added the pr merged label Aug 23, 2017

@skynavga

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Collaborator

commented Aug 23, 2017

@r12a a note as described above has been merged to resolve this issue; please inform us of disposition in I18N WG

@skynavga skynavga added the editorial label Aug 23, 2017

@skynavga skynavga removed their assignment Aug 31, 2017

@css-meeting-bot

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

commented Aug 31, 2017

The Working Group just discussed ttml2#254 Default ruby position may be on the wrong side for tblr (eg. mongolian), and agreed to the following resolutions:

  • SUMMARY: Group ok with this disposition
The full IRC log of that discussion <nigel> Topic: ttml2#254 Default ruby position may be on the wrong side for tblr (eg. mongolian)
<nigel> github: https://github.com//issues/254
<nigel> Glenn: In this case I added a note that reflects the intended disposition.
<nigel> -> https://w3c.github.io/ttml2/spec/ttml2.html#style-attribute-rubyPosition rubyPosition in current ED
<nigel> Glenn: The note I added should reflect Richard's request.
<nigel> Nigel: OK that seems reasonable to me.
<nigel> SUMMARY: Group ok with this disposition
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
You can’t perform that action at this time.