-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 17
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
itts:forcedDisplay should apply to image element in image profile #493
Comments
|
@skynavga we'd like to be able to resolve this before or during Thursday's call if possible. |
but |
Applying |
ok, but an author should be able to apply it to the |
Not necessary in IMSC, and My overriding suggestion is to avoid making any change to the Image Profile unless absolutely necessary. |
@skynavga It'd be helpful to know what's driving this request - for example are there users or practitioners who have been in touch with you to complain about this omission? If it's a point of principle alone, I don't disagree that in an ideal world the semantic makes more sense if we could apply |
No, there was no external input. This came up during work on TTV support for IMSC1.1 and review of upcoming IMSC1.2 semantics w.r.t. semantic symmetry and consistency. |
The Timed Text Working Group just discussed
The full IRC log of that discussion<nigel> Topic: itts:forcedDisplay should apply to image element in image profile imsc#493<nigel> github: https://github.com//issues/493 <nigel> Pierre: This is a direct parallel to #490. forced Display applies to div and not image. <nigel> .. This is fine in Image profile because there's a 1:1 mapping between images and divs, so I suggest the same <nigel> .. disposition, which is not to address in IMSC 1.2 but leave on the backlog. <nigel> Nigel: I took the step for this one of checking in with Glenn on the driver for the issue and it seems <nigel> .. to be one of semantic asymmetry and inconsistency. I take the view also that this inconsistency is not great <nigel> .. but is not enough of a motivation in itself to make a change at this time. <nigel> PROPOSAL: We will not address this in IMSC 1.2 but leave on the backlog for potentially fixing in some future version. <nigel> Nigel: Any objections? <nigel> group: [no objections] <nigel> RESOLUTION: We will not address this in IMSC 1.2 but leave on the backlog for potentially fixing in some future version. |
No description provided.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: