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

Wide Review Comment 2017: formatting issues #385

Closed
nigelmegitt opened this issue Sep 27, 2017 · 7 comments
Closed

Wide Review Comment 2017: formatting issues #385

nigelmegitt opened this issue Sep 27, 2017 · 7 comments

Comments

@nigelmegitt
Copy link
Contributor

Copy/paste from https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tt/2017Sep/0080.html - raising as an issue for tracking/disposition purposes.

There seem to be some formatting oddities when I view the specification on Firefox or Chrome – in section 3.1 there's an algorithm for calculating the computed line, whose outline box might be helpful but overlaps the bullet numbers on the left.

The diagram at the bottom of section 3.2 seems to truncate the word "Video viewport".

Some text has a yellow highlight colour without explanation, e.g. In Example 19.

@silviapfeiffer
Copy link
Member

The yellow highlight colour on srclang in Example 19 is to highlight the srclang attribute use in that example. I think it's useful. The text above it says:

The applicable language for the list of WebVTT Node Objects can be set by the srclang attribute in HTML.

So it makes sense to mark the srclang attribute specifically. I'll not change this in the patch, if that's ok with you.

@nigelmegitt
Copy link
Contributor Author

@silviapfeiffer Oh I see, that wasn't obvious to me. I see what you mean, but it does still seem odd that it's the only fragment of an example that warrants this yellow styling.

@silviapfeiffer
Copy link
Member

Resolution: remove the yellow

@silviapfeiffer
Copy link
Member

Highlight was removed and patch updated, please review.

@silviapfeiffer
Copy link
Member

Patch landed, all issues were addressed. I think we need issue submitter comment.

@silviapfeiffer
Copy link
Member

@nigelmegitt are you ok with the resolution of this issue with the patch in #396 ?

@nigelmegitt
Copy link
Contributor Author

For posterity: #396 (review)

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants