- From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2013 15:56:48 +0200
- To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
- CC: www-style@w3.org, public-i18n-cjk@w3.org, Robin Berjon <robin@w3.org>, Richard Ishida <ishida@w3.org>
Hello Ivan,
Wednesday, September 25, 2013, 12:03:51 PM, you wrote:
> (On advise of Richard) I read the latest CSS ruby document[1] in
> conjunction with Robin's HTML Ruby draft[2], and I got stuck on two minor things:
> (1) section 2.1, last item on 'ruby-text-container': shouldn't that
> item refer to HTML/XHTML <rtc> element, rather than <ruby>?
Yes
http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/REC-ruby-20010531/#rtc
> (2) section 2.1, the penultimate item refers to the XHTML <rbc>
> element (note that it does not refer to HTML...), and the same
> element also appears in the UA style sheet in Appendix A (referring
> to XHTML _and_ HTML). However, that element is not defined in[2]...
Perhaps: the UA stylesheet is misleading there because, as section 2.1 notes
>> (Corresponds to XHTML <rbc> elements; always implied in HTML.)
I say misleading rather than wrong because, when applied to an HTML5
document, this rule will certainly not match
rbc { display: ruby-base-container; }
but on the other hand, anonymous ruby base container boxes will be
generated which has the same effect. So the same stylesheet could be
applied to both (and user agents might want to have one stylesheet
rather than two).
I agree though that this different mode of action for XHTML and for
HTML5 should be explained, in the spec, directly below the stylesheet.
> Ivan
> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/WD-css3-ruby-20130919/
> [2] http://darobin.github.io/html-ruby/snapshot20130225.html
> ----
> Ivan Herman, W3C
> Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
> mobile: +31-641044153
> FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf
--
Best regards,
Chris mailto:chris@w3.org
Received on Wednesday, 25 September 2013 13:56:51 UTC