Re: Ruby extension: empty ruby text

On 27/02/2013 15:13, Leif Halvard Silli wrote:
> 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>.

Well i, too, was very much hoping that what you describe here would be 
true. But when I asked Robin about it, he told me that there is no rb 
element in the DOM if there is no rb tag.

Robin, did I get that right? Would it be difficult to change that? 
(Since I think it would help a lot.)

RI



-- 
Richard Ishida, W3C
http://rishida.net/

Received on Wednesday, 6 March 2013 15:27:56 UTC