- From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2014 16:55:55 -0500
- To: Xidorn Quan <quanxunzhen@gmail.com>
- 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 11/14/2014 04:14 PM, Xidorn Quan wrote: > On Sat, Nov 15, 2014 at 3:54 AM, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net <mailto:fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>> wrote: > > >> 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? Yes, that sounds exactly right. I will updated the spec accordingly. ~fantasai
Received on Friday, 14 November 2014 21:56:23 UTC