Issue 1204 positioning example #1207
Conversation
This is the first proposal in #1204.
During w3c/ttwg#107 @skynavga objected to moving the region specification in the last example from the `body` element to the `div` element and instead suggested adding an explanatory note. This commit does that, and also adds a further example document showing content in two regions, overlapping temporally. The sample renderings are generated by sandflow/imscJS based on the source at `spec/images/sources/example-complex-layout.ttml` - this source necessarily includes both `tts:origin` and `tts:position` because that library currently does not support `tts:position` (since it is not part of IMSC).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm afraid I cannot agree to adding an extended, complex example at this late stage of the publishing process. Furthermore, the suggested note is far to detailed and will be more confusing to a reader than otherwise in this introductory context, so I cannot accept it either. I suggest moving this entire PR to 3ED.
|
@skynavga please could you be more specific about the issue with the note? Is the problem only with the second part, for example? What did you have in mind as an alternative when you proposed this compromise in our call on Thursday? As for the additional example, this is an informative example in an informative section, so it would be helpful to know more about why you think it is a bad idea to add it, given that it has no substantive impact and does, in my opinion, help to address the implementer feedback I received. That feedback included a statement that the examples are typically treated as examples of common practice, and are therefore misleading. My previous proposal was to amend the existing example, and you also objected to that. |
|
@nigelmegitt upon additional consideration, I have concluded that (1) the current example does not warrant any comment since it only makes use of |
|
@skynavga I'm not sure, but it seems that you are dismissing the issue rather than accepting a proposal to resolve it? Absent a better user guide, implementers do in fact read the introduction hoping to glean some kind of usage hints: that was the feedback I received that caused me to raise #1204. As things stand, the examples do not give a realistic sense of any typical usage that I'm aware of. That being the case, it seems reasonable to make some change to address the point. If you feel that the note is going too far, I'd accept removing it if we could agree to add the new example, since the new example pulls the previous threads together in a "here's what it might look like in practice" sense, i.e. it provides what those readers are hoping to find, without going too far down the road of producing a user guide. |
|
@nigelmegitt my larger issue is that this is not a typo fix, and this is not a wide review comment resolution; this is a new issue that is proposed to be resolved in CR at a point in the process after we have agreed to only entertain typo fixes and wide review comments; so if you want to move this to 3ED, then feel free to do so |
Ah, this is where we differ. We are not in the Process phase where we must demonstrate wide review, i.e. prior to entering CR, but comments are still welcome, as stated in the CR SOTD, and this is exactly the kind of implementer feedback that we need to accept and respond to positively. Arguably this feedback was primarily provided against TTML1, but to my mind the best value in terms of future-facing fixes is to fix within TTML2. This also gives the opportunity to show how, for example, using So I am treating this issue as a wide review comment. |
|
@nigelmegitt this issue is clearly not related to a change made in 2nd edition, or even in TTML2, it is clearly not related to a substantive bug, and it is clearly not a typo fix; therefore, it is an attempt to introduce a change that is outside the scope of what can be considered a response to the normal review process of a CR; as such, I find it to be NIGO (not in good order) as a wide review comment, and object to it for consideration in 2ED at this time |
This is predicated on the idea that the only valid comments are those made to this specific version of the document. No such qualification is made in the SOTD where the invitation to comment is provided. |
Resolves @cconcolato 's review comment.
spec/ttml2.xml
Outdated
| @@ -523,6 +537,108 @@ elements as they appear in the content hierarchy.</p> | |||
| </tr> | |||
| </tbody> | |||
| </table> | |||
| <p>The location of content spatially is independent of its timing. | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I suggest something less abstract, along the lines of: TTML content consists of text that is flowed into regions over time.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
On reflection, those concepts were already described in the text. Rather than trying to rewrite them with duplication I've reduced the amount of text and made it follow on a little better from the previous example. Let me know if that's an improvement @palemieux .
|
@palemieux @cconcolato @skynavga please could you re-review given the changes from 12th May? @skynavga I could not derive any actions that would resolve your objection, other than not merging, but perhaps you could look again and consider reconsidering? |
spec/ttml2.xml
Outdated
| region. This is because any such descendant would be pruned from presentation, | ||
| by the effect of the | ||
| <loc href="#procedure-construct-intermediate-document"><phrase role="strong">[construct intermediate document]</phrase></loc> | ||
| procedure.</p> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This explanation is not sufficiently specific to understand what part of the [construct immediate document] procedure is responsible for pruning.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@skynavga I'm not convinced that it needs to be more specific, in this introduction example section. I'm trying to avoid falling foul of your #1207 (comment) :
attempts to paraphrase a quite complicated piece of semantics in a introductory context where such details are intentionally excluded and doing so would only serve to confuse the reader
However I will change "by the effect of the [construct intermediate document] procedure" to "by an effect..." to avoid giving the impression that this is the only thing that procedure does.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Slight change of mind: I think the wording "as a consequence of" works better than "by an effect of"
| <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?> | ||
| <tt xml:lang="" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/ns/ttml" xmlns:tts="http://www.w3.org/ns/ttml#styling"> | ||
| <head> | ||
| <styling> | ||
| <style xml:id="pStyle" | ||
| tts:backgroundColor="cyan" | ||
| tts:textAlign="center" | ||
| tts:fontSize="6.7rh"/> | ||
| <style xml:id="spanStyle" | ||
| tts:color="white" | ||
| tts:backgroundColor="black" | ||
| tts:fontFamily="proportionalSansSerif"/> | ||
| </styling> | ||
| <layout xmlns:tts="http://www.w3.org/ns/ttml#styling"> | ||
| <region xml:id="topCenterArea" | ||
| tts:origin="10% 10%" | ||
| tts:position="center top 10%" | ||
| tts:extent="80% 20%" | ||
| tts:displayAlign="before" | ||
| tts:backgroundColor="purple" | ||
| tts:showBackground="whenActive" | ||
| /> | ||
| <region xml:id="bottomLeftArea" | ||
| tts:origin="10% 70%" | ||
| tts:position="left 10% bottom 10%" | ||
| tts:extent="60% 20%" | ||
| tts:displayAlign="after" | ||
| tts:backgroundColor="green" | ||
| tts:showBackground="whenActive" | ||
| /> | ||
| </layout> | ||
| </head> | ||
| <body> | ||
| <div> | ||
| <p xml:id="subtitle1" begin="00:00:00.500" end="00:00:01.500" region="topCenterArea" style="pStyle"> | ||
| <span style="spanStyle">I shall ask our Physiological Lecturer why<br/> | ||
| he never gave us that exquisite Theory!</span> | ||
| </p> | ||
| <p xml:id="subtitle2" begin="00:00:01" end="00:00:02" region="bottomLeftArea" style="pStyle"> | ||
| <span style="spanStyle">I'd give something to be present<br/> | ||
| when the question is asked!</span> | ||
| </p> | ||
| </div> | ||
| </body> | ||
| </tt> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Remove this as source file from repository. We don't store other examples as full TTML (XML) source files.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
In fact we do store at least one other source for content generated for the spec: the design folder contains the source for the media timing image. I think we should as a rule try to store the sources. It's a real pain going back to old examples and not having the sources available to modify them, because unless you're the author of the example and happen to have the source available somewhere, the effect is that it needs to be rewritten.
Closes #1204 by adding a note and an example.
During w3c/ttwg#107 @skynavga objected to moving the region specification in the last example from the
bodyelement to thedivelement and instead suggested adding an explanatory note.This pull request does that, and also adds a further example document showing content in two regions, overlapping temporally. The sample renderings are generated by sandflow/imscJS based on the source added at
spec/images/sources/example-complex-layout.ttml- this necessarily includes bothtts:originandtts:positionbecause that library currently does not supporttts:position(since it is not part of IMSC). The example in the specification document omits thetts:origin.