Re: Memo from ruby disucssion with Roland

On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 12:51, Leif Halvard Silli <
xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no> wrote:

> * IE handles row-major [yes it does]
> * Since IE9, <rtc> can be used
>  If you use HTML5 shiv, you can use it in IE6-8 too
> * IE — at least until IE9 - does not auto-close any elements
>  when it sees <rt>. [Well, there is one element that makes it
>  auto close, and that is if you place a <ruby> inside a <ruby>
>  - that's like trying to place a <p> inside a <p>.]
>
> I demo all this - except the auto-closing of <ruby> inside <ruby> -
> here:
>
> http://software.hixie.ch/utilities/js/live-dom-viewer/saved/1348


I just opened this on IE 9.0.8112:

Your demo does NOT show that IE9 handles row-major ruby. In fact, you only
have a single base in your "row-major" example! The difference between IE
and WebKit is that IE renders all the following "orphaned" ruby texts on
that single base, while WebKit assumes empty bases for every such text.

Your demo also does NOT show that you can use <rtc> in IE9 - the ruby texts
render next to the base rather than above it, which makes me strongly
believe <rtc> is handled as just another unknown element. The contained
<rt>'s, not being direct children of <ruby> anymore, merely cause the text
to be rendered in a smaller font, but still as base (!).


> On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 11:42, Leif Halvard Silli  wrote:
>
Having outlined the differences between Webkit and IE [1], I cannot see
>
that there is any win of having column-major conforming when we agree
> that the way forward is row-major. The only 'column-major subset' that
> should be conforming, is a ruby element with a single base plus a
> single text.
>

The fact is that the current IE and WebKit implementations are both
column-major and there is a fair amount of web pages with such content.

Now, I don't want to argue that we necessarily should keep column-major
going forward. But any proposal should (and very probably must) have a
fallback to the current implementations.


In fact, this,
>
> <ruby>A<rt>a</ruby><ruby>B<rt>c</ruby><ruby>C<rt>c</ruby>
>
> is semantically equal to this:
>
> <ruby>A<rt>a</rt>B<rt>b</rt>C<rt>c</rt></ruby>
>

I don't see these as semantically equivalent. To me the first is a sequence
of mono rubies, the second a single jukugo ruby.


Cheers,

- Roland