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

Re: Ruby extension: empty ruby text

From: Robin Berjon <robin@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 07 Mar 2013 16:40:36 +0100
Message-ID: <5138B4F4.9040505@w3.org>
To: Richard Ishida <ishida@w3.org>
CC: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>, 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>
On 06/03/2013 16:27 , Richard Ishida wrote:
> 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>

I forgot to say: independently of whether the parsing algorithm is 
changed to generate elements it is also possible to support the above. 
But I'm not sure that it's a great idea: the processing model for <rb>, 
etc. that don't have a <ruby> parent would have to be different from 
that in a <ruby> parent, which makes it rather messy. Either that or 
we'd have to drop things like the ability to have automatic anonymous 
bases even when inside <ruby>.

At some point I think the complexity gets out of hand (including for 
authors since you'd either have two different authoring rules depending 
on context or less friendly authoring rules everywhere).

-- 
Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/ - @robinberjon
Received on Thursday, 7 March 2013 15:40:51 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 7 March 2013 15:40:51 GMT