Re: [css-ruby] Propose to use a different syntax for inter-character annotation

On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 3:32 AM, Koji Ishii <kojiishi@gmail.com> wrote:

> Syntactically, among "inter-character" and Xidorn's proposal, I'm fine
> either way. I personally agree with Richard though.
>
> One concern is fallback. "inter-character" falls back better for UAs
> that do not support, no? I don't know how Chinese feel it's acceptable
> fallback or not though.
>

OK, that's a fair point. Yes, inter-character fallbacks better for UAs
which support basic ruby, which is true for most major UAs now. For UAs
which supports writing-mode but not ruby, using writing-mode syntax
fallbacks better, but I don't believe there exists such UA.

I agree that we should keep the inter-character value.

What about, let inter-character only compute the writing-mode, and make the
writing-mode of ruby text container affect the actual layout thing? I mean,
if the author specify the writing-mode to an orthogonal value, then it
becomes inter-base, and ignore what ruby-position is, and if the
ruby-position is inter-character, writing-mode is computed to vertical-rl.

Alternatively, we should specify that writing-mode should be the same
between ruby container, ruby base container and ruby text container, if
ruby-position is over/under.

(I guess we should always specify that ruby base container should have the
same writing-mode as its parent.)


>  > rt { writing-mode: vertical-rl; }
> >
> > would be enough, if they don't use any <rtc>.
> >
> > Actually, I guess it might be good to always have anonymous ruby text
> > containers "inherit" styles from their child instead of their parent. I'd
> > like to open another thread to discuss this.
>
> Can't this:
>
> rtc, rt { writing-mode: vertical-rl; }
>
> solve?


No, because this rule doesn't do anything to anonymous ruby text containers.

See https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2015Mar/0181.html

- Xidorn