W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > November 2014

Re: [css-ruby] spanning of ruby annotations across excess bases

From: Xidorn Quan <quanxunzhen@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 15 Nov 2014 08:14:04 +1100
Message-ID: <CAMdq699vtb1M2xUwP=p=OYSghNTriKoKhvMyGYMakz_wUogWuA@mail.gmail.com>
To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Cc: Koji Ishii <kojiishi@gmail.com>, kawabata taichi <kawabata.taichi@gmail.com>, "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On Sat, Nov 15, 2014 at 3:54 AM, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>

> On 11/13/2014 01:39 AM, Xidorn Quan wrote:
>> On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 5:24 PM, Koji Ishii <kojiishi@gmail.com <mailto:
>> kojiishi@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>     On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 5:53 AM, Xidorn Quan <quanxunzhen@gmail.com
>> <mailto:quanxunzhen@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>  I have another suggestion. I found that in all use cases
>>>> I had seen in JLREQ and specs, spanning is never directly
>>>> connected with any previous separate-paired annotation.
>>>> Is that make sense to only have span when an annotation
>>>> is the only child of a <rtc>? I think that could significantly
>>>> reduce the complexity on width calculation (which is the
>>>> hardest part in my opinion) and line breaking. In addition,
>>>> even if we drop spanning completely, we have to process
>>>> this level of complexity to support ruby-merge anyway.
>>>  I don't understand what you meant by "connected",
>> I meant, I found that spans do not immediately follow other
>> annotations, so that use cases for spanning can be covered
>> by the  solution I proposed.
>>  but do you mean to allow spanning only when there is only
>> > one <rt> child for a <rtc>? If that's the case, I think it's
>>> reasonable. If I misunderstood what you meant, can you
>>> clarify a bit more?
>> Yes, that's what I meant. That could significantly simplify
>> handling spanning, since there won't be spans of different
>> width in one segment.
> Yes, I don't see a problem here either. I would prefer, if it's
> possible, that we only span if the content is directly contained
> in an <rtc> rather than special-casing <rt>s that are the only
> child. Is that workable? That was the original goal: to make
> content directly contained by an <rtc> span all the bases.
> The effects on <rt> was just error-handling that fell out of
> that approach.

I think it's workable. But I prefer the spec to say something like "If the
only child of an <rtc> is an anonymous <rt>, which means that all content
is directly contained by the <rtc>, it spans all the bases." so that we do
not need to complexify the anonymous box generation part, and we won't
apply something on <rt>s but forgot the content directly inside <rtc>s.
Does that make sense?

- Xidorn
Received on Friday, 14 November 2014 21:15:13 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:39:26 UTC