-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 16
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
Further constrain ruby descendants (#372). #614
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I still think the text is too verbose. We should find another way, more compact, maybe more formal to express those constraints.
Also, the use of 'is' instead of 'must' is confusing in:
if the computed value of tts:ruby is
container
, then the
computed value of tts:ruby of all ancestor elements isnone
;
It should be:
if the computed value of tts:ruby is
container
, then the
computed value of tts:ruby of all ancestor elements must benone
;
@cconcolato no, can't do that (change to "must"); we try to use constraint language consistently in TTML2, which uses declarative statements with "is" not "must"; see also the text under Conventions:
Doing as you suggest would require making thousands of changes throughout the text, which clearly we are not going to do. |
It is fine in many places to use the "imperative" form. I note that this is not the case everywhere, e.g. the use of 'must' in the following sentences:
I feel it would be more appropriate in this case to use 'must'. |
About the conciseness, can you at least avoid repeating "if the computed value of tts:ruby is container" 5 times and others 6 or 7 times, e.g. by using sub-bullets? |
On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 1:59 PM, Cyril Concolato ***@***.***> wrote:
About the conciseness, can you at least avoid repeating "if the computed
value of tts:ruby is container" 5 times and others 6 or 7 times, e.g. by
using sub-bullets?
That is strictly editorial tweaking, which we can do at any time in the
future. We have more important matters to work at present. Please approve
the PR unless you find a substantive breakage.
… —
You are receiving this because you were assigned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#614 (comment)>, or mute
the thread
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAXCb9_vA6k2gD2toL0F7JxhQ5F-M4lnks5tQNRCgaJpZM4RzTQQ>
.
|
@cconcolato to elaborate, the constraints on ruby content are mandatory for the support of tts:ruby, because:
I realize you may be accustomed to other conventions in different SDOs or WGs or documents, but this is what we have with TTML, and we aren't going to change it now. As for making minor, editorial tweaks to improve reading: while they may be considered useful for some readers, others will find what we have sufficient. At this juncture, I prefer we focus on substantive issues, and not word-smithing. |
@cconcolato thanks! |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I'm not sure I know enough about ruby processing and presentation to review this. The language around constraints is a little strange, since they are effectively SHALL requirements that avoid using that conformance language, but that does seem editorial.
Closes #372.