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

It should be easier to specify direction for RTL script users #263

Closed
r12a opened this issue Feb 16, 2017 · 10 comments
Closed

It should be easier to specify direction for RTL script users #263

r12a opened this issue Feb 16, 2017 · 10 comments

Comments

@r12a
Copy link

@r12a r12a commented Feb 16, 2017

10.2.12 tts:direction
https://w3c.github.io/ttml2/spec/ttml2.html#style-attribute-direction

I may be missing something, but is it correct to assume that a person trying to use TTML for Arabic or Hebrew or any of the many other languages using so-called RTL scripts will need to explicitly add the tts:writing-mode or tts:direction attribute to every p or div? If so, that's a significant disincentive to use TTML for people from those regions.

One way to approach this might be to allow a file-wide default direction to be set, like using <html dir="ltr" in HTML.

Another may be to make the default auto, so that tts:direction only needs to be applied when the auto-detection rules fail (ie. when text in a block begins with a character with a strong opposite directionality).

@nigelmegitt

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

@nigelmegitt nigelmegitt commented Feb 16, 2017

Hi @r12a I can't answer many of your recent issue questions but this one I think I can:

tts:writing-mode applies to regions, so it is effective on all the content flowed into each region.

tts:direction is inherited (see the table row heading "Inherited", value "Yes") so it can be set on a region or body for example and will apply to all the descendants (unless overridden by being specified with a different value on some descendant part of the tree of course).

So, no it is not correct to make that assumption.

@r12a

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Author

@r12a r12a commented Feb 16, 2017

That's good to know. Thanks.

@palemieux

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

@palemieux palemieux commented May 3, 2017

@r12a Does the information at #263 (comment) resolve your comment?

@palemieux palemieux self-assigned this May 3, 2017
@palemieux palemieux added the for review label May 3, 2017
@skynavga

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Collaborator

@skynavga skynavga commented May 11, 2017

[Meeting 05/11/17] Group resolves to close without action and mark as works for me.

@skynavga skynavga closed this May 11, 2017
@nigelmegitt

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

@nigelmegitt nigelmegitt commented May 14, 2017

Reopening and requesting confirmation from the issue raiser @r12a that the question has now been answered satisfactorily.

@nigelmegitt nigelmegitt reopened this May 14, 2017
@skynavga

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Collaborator

@skynavga skynavga commented May 14, 2017

It is not necessary that the issue remain open for the original commenter to make a comment to that effect. If the reporter wants to re-open the issue because they are dissatisfied, then they can do so; however, there is no need for us to keep it open lacking substantive input.

@skynavga skynavga closed this May 14, 2017
@nigelmegitt

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

@nigelmegitt nigelmegitt commented May 15, 2017

Reopening and moved to a non-Editor's milestone.

@r12a

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Author

@r12a r12a commented Aug 17, 2017

I believe this has been answered satisfactorily. Thank you. The i18n WG is now closing the pointer to this issue in its review tracker.

@skynavga

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Collaborator

@skynavga skynavga commented Aug 21, 2017

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

@skynavga skynavga closed this Aug 21, 2017
@css-meeting-bot

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

@css-meeting-bot css-meeting-bot commented Aug 31, 2017

The Working Group just discussed ttml2#263 It should be easier to specify direction for RTL script users, and agreed to the following resolutions:

  • SUMMARY: No further action to take (WG already agreed disposition)
The full IRC log of that discussion <nigel> Topic: ttml2#263 It should be easier to specify direction for RTL script users
<nigel> github: https://github.com//issues/263
<nigel> Nigel: I see that Richard has closed this on the i18n tracker, so I think this is all done.
<nigel> Glenn: Part of this was education. On May 11 we resolved to take no action and mark as
<nigel> .. works for me.
<nigel> SUMMARY: No further action to take (WG already agreed disposition)
@skynavga skynavga added the wg accepted label Sep 7, 2017
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
5 participants
You can’t perform that action at this time.