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: Wed, 30 Nov 2011 16:04:37 +0000
To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1RVmeD-0004am-8H@jessica.w3.org>
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=10830

--- Comment #74 from Kang-Hao (Kenny) Lu <kennyluck@csail.mit.edu> 2011-11-30 16:04:36 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #73)
> (In reply to comment #72)
> > If you modify your example to something like <ruby><rb>A<rt>B<rb>C<rt>D</ruby>
> > then the "ruby parsing" won't work in FF8 and Safari 5.1. Although if I
> > understand correctly it might work again because of bug 12935. 
> 
> Thinking about this again I think this statement is false.

So I guess the risk here for allowing <rb> but not changing the auto-closing
here is that authors might falsely think <ruby><rb>A<rt>B<rb>C<rt>D</ruby>
would work. But is that a real problem given that
<details><summary>A<div>B</details> doesn't work either? (though admittedly
<ruby> is more like <dl>. One might argue about the inconsistency that <rb>
doesn't have the auto-closing behavior of <rt> and <rp>, but we are deprecating
<rp>, which I would agree to be a completely useless element, in the long run
for authors, so I think this is less like a problem) And you could always do
<ruby>A<rt>B</rt>C<rt>D</rt></ruby> instead of
<ruby><rb>A</rb><rt>B</rt><rb>C</rb><rt>D</tt></ruby> if we make <rb> optional
and you don't need extra tags to make you confident to use ruby.

-- 
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 Wednesday, 30 November 2011 16:04:42 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 30 November 2011 16:04:47 GMT