W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-bugzilla@w3.org > November 2011

[Bug 10830] i18n comment : Please add support for rb

From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2011 20:29:16 +0000
To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1RVUIm-0002rJ-8s@jessica.w3.org>
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=10830

--- Comment #68 from Ian 'Hixie' Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> 2011-11-29 20:29:13 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #62)
> 
> Yomiuri Online (very common newspaper in Japan)
> http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/

Here's an example:
http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/national/news/20111129-OYT1T01293.htm?from=main1

The <rb> is not styled and the page would render *exactly* the same if the
<rb>s were simply omitted. But they don't need to be omitted, because if
browsers continue to ignore <rb> as they do now and as the spec requires, the
page will *also* continue to work exactly the same.

This bug in no way negatively affects Yomiuri Online. In fact the spec as it
stands now would slightly positively affect them, by making it possible to
strip the elements from their markup and thus saving some bandwidth.


> Automatic ruby programs
> http://mt.adaptive-techs.com/httpadaptor/servlet/HttpAdaptor?.h0.=fp&.ui.=trial&.up.=&.ro.=kh&.st.=rb

The only thing this page does with <rb> is style it to not render as native
ruby!


> http://www.hiragana.jp/

Again, the only style applied to <rb> here is to not style it as native ruby.

For both the adaptive-techs.com site and the hiragana.jp site, this bug would
have no effect whatsoever on the sites. They would continue to work as they do
today whether we added <rb> or not. The sites right now are simply relying on
the element being treated as an unknown element in browsers.


> Koji Ishii and I believe that the rb tag is widely implemented.

You are wrong. Browsers all treat <rb> the same as <xxx>. This is trivially
demonstrable by loading the following in the live DOM viewer:

   <ruby><rb>base<rt>text</ruby>
   <ruby><xxx>base<rt>text</ruby>

Or the following:

   <ruby><rb>base<rt>text<rb>base<rt>text</ruby>


> This point appears to be subjective

It's not subjective. You can list the use cases quite easily, and then see if
you need <rb> to do them. You'll find you don't. I've demonstrated this
numerous times in this bug already.

-- 
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, 29 November 2011 20:29:27 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 29 November 2011 20:29:33 GMT