- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2011 19:57:01 +0000
- To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=12935
Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Keywords| |TrackerRequest
--- Comment #19 from Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu> 2011-06-14 19:57:00 UTC ---
Going to escalate this to the tracker, I'm afraid. As I said, I have no
opinions on whether complex ruby is something we want to add, but I'm opposed
to us foreclosing the option now due to an auto-closing behavior whose benefits
are somewhat dubious to start with.
Tracker issue title: "HTML parsing spec should not prevent future
implementation of complex ruby or other development or ruby markup".
Tracker issue text: "The current behavior of <rt> closing all ancestor tags up
to the <ruby> is not compatible with the existing complex ruby proposals, nor
with the paragraph-level markup suggestions from comment 9".
On a personal note, I think that suggesting people use DocBook for cases like
"write a web page for for kids that includes the word 'Tokyo'" is ridiculous.
It's somewhat unfortunate that some of the writing systems involved are so
complicated and the complications seep into HTML, but rejecting the authoring
of reasonable HTML documents in these writing systems is on its face a bad idea
in my view.
--
Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug.
Received on Tuesday, 14 June 2011 19:57:02 UTC