W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-admin@w3.org > July 2014

[Bug 26424] New: Tag omission rules for rp could break invalid-but-existing content

From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2014 10:14:46 +0000
To: public-html-admin@w3.org
Message-ID: <bug-26424-2495@http.www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/>
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=26424

            Bug ID: 26424
           Summary: Tag omission rules for rp could break
                    invalid-but-existing content
           Product: HTML WG
           Version: unspecified
          Hardware: All
                OS: All
            Status: NEW
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P2
         Component: HTML5 spec
          Assignee: dave.null@w3.org
          Reporter: kojiishi@gluesoft.co.jp
        QA Contact: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
                CC: mike@w3.org, public-html-admin@w3.org,
                    public-html-wg-issue-tracking@w3.org

When author puts rp inside rtc, rp auto-closes rtc, and it will produce an
unexpected result.

Having rp inside rtc is invalid, so it's not strictly wrong to break. We found
one such instance reported at
<https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1042885>, but nothing else at
this point.

But in this case, unlike rb, rt, or rtc, the benefits of rp to auto-close rtc
is little to zero, so I'd prioritize not to break invalid-but-existing content
even if its actual usage is low.

One question remains; if we agree to change this behavior, should rp auto-close
nothing, or should rp handle rtc as auto-close exception?

I'm leaning to the latter, just because existing implementations used to
auto-close rp, rt, and other implied end tags and therefore it can give better
backward compatibility, but I'm good with the former if other people prefers.

Example:
<ruby>
  <rbc><rb>壱岐 </rb><rb>ひより</rb></rbc>
  <rtc><rp>(</rp><rt>いき </rt><rt class="ruby_hide">ひより</rt><rp>)</rp></rtc>
  <rtc><rp>(</rp><rt>IKI </rt><rt>Hiyori</rt><rp>)</rp></rtc>
</ruby>

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Received on Thursday, 24 July 2014 10:14:48 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:37:36 UTC