- From: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
- Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2013 16:13:06 +0100
- To: Richard Ishida <ishida@w3.org>
- Cc: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>, 'WWW International' <www-international@w3.org>, CJK discussion <public-i18n-cjk@w3.org>, Ishii Koji <kojiishi@gluesoft.co.jp>
Richard Ishida, Wed, 27 Feb 2013 14:54:19 +0000: > On 25/02/2013 23:31, fantasai wrote: >> One thing I had suggested was to do the somewhat >> confusing thing and make the <ruby> start tag >> optional. This shortens markup slightly to >> >> <rb>B<rb>B<rt>a<rt>a</ruby> >> >> instead of (for the same DOM): >> >> <ruby><rb>B<rb>B<rt>a<rt>a</ruby> > > However, if you do that as a matter of course, and then someone comes > along and wants to style the whole page so that, say, all base text > is hidden for accessibility reasons, then they wont be able to style > the initial base text in each ruby element. I think it's better to > recommend that each item in a ruby element start with either <rb>, > <rt> or <rtc>. An optional start tag would not mean that the <ruby> element would be optional - the HTML parser would generate it. Fantasai’s proposal only means that the <ruby> element would be auto-generated - and thus *would be entirely possible to style* for accessibility reasons and any other reason. Since it would probably be the presence of a <rb> that caused the <ruby> to be auto-generated, fantasai’s proposal would implicitly be strong recommendation to use <rb>. -- leif halvard silli
Received on Wednesday, 27 February 2013 15:13:42 UTC