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

[IR] settings position test failing #469

Open
gkatsev opened this issue Jul 3, 2019 · 1 comment
Open

[IR] settings position test failing #469

gkatsev opened this issue Jul 3, 2019 · 1 comment
Labels
IR issues that arose during the implementation report phase

Comments

@gkatsev
Copy link
Collaborator

gkatsev commented Jul 3, 2019

The settings position test is failing because Chrome and Safari do not support position alignment. Position alignment is being marked as at-risk in #460. The position and position alignment test should likely be separated into to tests.

@gkatsev gkatsev added the IR issues that arose during the implementation report phase label Sep 11, 2019
@css-meeting-bot
Copy link
Member

The Timed Text Working Group just discussed [IR] settings position test failing webvtt#469, and agreed to the following:

  • RESOLUTION: Split position alignment from the rest of the position tests, into a new test.
  • RESOLUTION: Mark position alignment as at risk
The full IRC log of that discussion <nigel> Topic: [IR] settings position test failing webvtt#469
<nigel> github: https://github.com//issues/469
<nigel> Gary: This is the same as #468 exept there are no bugs with position itself.
<nigel> .. Proposal will be to separate position and position alignment tests and mark position alignment as at risk.
<nigel> PROPOSAL: Split position alignment from the rest of the position tests, into a new test.
<nigel> PROPOSAL: Mark position alignment as at risk
<nigel> Nigel: What does this do?
<nigel> [discussion about what position alignment does]
<nigel> Gary: It's a bit confusing which is why I'm not particularly bothered about marking is as at risk.
<nigel> Glenn: Is it marked as at risk?
<nigel> Gary: Yes in the snapshot we're working on.
<nigel> .. I won't remove it immediately.
<nigel> Glenn: Ok
<nigel> Gary: Position alignment controls left/center/right alignment in the writing direction
<nigel> Nigel: That's quite a big deal compared to line alignment.
<nigel> Andreas: there's also "align" which does start/center/end/left/right
<nigel> .. I think the use case you have is to align the text according to the writing direction?
<nigel> Nigel: Hmm yes I think so. Is this the equivalent of multiRowAlign in IMSC?
<nigel> group: [um, possibly]
<nigel> Andreas: Everyone found this hard to understand. I think the use case to align text is met by "align".
<nigel> Nigel: I'm not going to object to marking as at risk a feature that nobody understands!
<nigel> Andreas: We do need to check that the use cases are all met.
<nigel> Gary: Chrome opened a bug on WebVTT that blocked them from implementing, 4 years ago or something like that.
<nigel> .. It does seem like granular positioning is useful. If we realise it is not necessary we can just leave it out.
<nigel> Gary: Any objections?
<nigel> Gary: No objections
<nigel> RESOLUTION: Split position alignment from the rest of the position tests, into a new test.
<nigel> RESOLUTION: Mark position alignment as at risk

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
IR issues that arose during the implementation report phase
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants