This is an archived snapshot of W3C's public bugzilla bug tracker, decommissioned in April 2019. Please see the home page for more details.
While going through https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/text-tracks/raw-file/default/webvtt/webvtt.html (dated Auugust 21, 2013), i noticed the following two statements: 1. "If the writing direction is horizontal, then line position percentages are relative to the height of the video, and text position and size percentages are relative to the width of the video." 2. "A number giving the position of the text within the cue box. If the cue is not within a region, the value is to be interpreted as a percentage of the box's size, otherwise as a percentage of the region width." Specfically, it appears that the interpretation of text position percentage is different between the above two statements when size is not equal to 100% (assuming regions are not used) Is my concern express aboved justified? If so, what is the correct interpretation?
(In reply to rpuri from comment #0) > While going through > https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/text-tracks/raw-file/default/webvtt/webvtt.html > (dated Auugust 21, 2013), i noticed the following two statements: > > 1. "If the writing direction is horizontal, then line position percentages > are relative to the height of the video, and text position and size > percentages are relative to the width of the video." > > 2. "A number giving the position of the text within the cue box. If the cue > is not within a region, the value is to be interpreted as a percentage of > the box's size, otherwise as a percentage of the region width." > > Specfically, it appears that the interpretation of text position percentage > is different between the above two statements when size is not equal to 100% > (assuming regions are not used) > > Is my concern express aboved justified? If so, what is the correct > interpretation? You were justified, the use of "box's size" was strange. Silvia fixed this as part of https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=20037 in October 2013, so I am closing this bug as fixed. Please reopen if you think the new wording is also contradictory.