W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-international@w3.org > January to March 2013

Re: Ruby extension: empty ruby text

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>
Message-ID: <20130227161306914219.0409d775@xn--mlform-iua.no>
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 15:13:43 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 21 September 2016 22:37:34 UTC