- From: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
- Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2014 16:47:34 -0400
- To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, www-style@w3.org
On 7/2/14, 4:25 PM, fantasai wrote: > # For the purpose of the rules above, a ruby container directly > # parented by a ruby container is considered to be a ruby base > # container. Er, that's pretty confusing. Why not just do that directly in the algorithm instead? That would be much preferable. For example, it would make it clear that this stuff is nothing like the table setup and the same code should not be reused for it! > So, yes, this particular box structure is left as-is. Would the desired behavior not be achievable if the inner ruby container got wrapped in a ruby base? >> 2) Assuming #1 gets addressed as I suggest, I believe the definition >> of "inter-level whitespace" can be simplified to two patterns: >> >> I. Next box is ruby annotation container >> II. Next box is ruby annotation an previous box is ruby annotation >> container. >> >> Any intra-ruby white space whose immediately following sibling is a >> ruby annotation container or whose imme > > Not sure what was meant here, got cut off? Yes, ignore that paragraph. It was an earlier attempt at phrasing things. The important part is the two-item list. But again, this depends on #1; I'm not going to worry about this part until that part is clear in my head. -Boris
Received on Wednesday, 2 July 2014 20:48:03 UTC