Re: [csswg-drafts] [css-ruby-1] ruby overhang control (#4492)

The CSS Working Group just discussed `[css-ruby-1] ruby overhang control`, and agreed to the following:

* `RESOLVED: ruby-overhang auto | none on ruby container`

<details><summary>The full IRC log of that discussion</summary>
&lt;Rossen__> Topic: [css-ruby-1] ruby overhang control<br>
&lt;Rossen__> github: https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/4492<br>
&lt;skk> I see https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/4419 on Text part 1 and Text part 2. Is this intentional?<br>
&lt;faceless> stanton: I'll introduce this<br>
&lt;Rossen__> s/stanton/stantonm/<br>
&lt;faceless> stanton: bit of background - in japanese text, in normal text all the characters are solid text - there is no space between the characters. Ruby allows this to change - if the ruby is longer than the base text, it can push spaces between the text.<br>
&lt;faceless> stanton: we've had feedback from authors that they don't always want to allow for this overhang. The overhang can cause confusion. We had feedback from JL task force and from younger users<br>
&lt;myles> q+<br>
&lt;faceless> stanton: proposal is to add a new property to disallow overhang. default we be auto which is the current behaviour. New value would be none which would disallow overhang outside the containing box?<br>
&lt;koji> -q<br>
&lt;Rossen__> ack koji<br>
&lt;Rossen__> ack myles<br>
&lt;faceless> myles: question - which element do you apply this property to?<br>
&lt;faceless> stanton: you could apply to document root but the one it would take effect on is the ruby tag<br>
&lt;faceless> myles: the proposal give the value a length?<br>
&lt;florian> q+<br>
&lt;faceless> stanton: the initial proposal was to be a bit more firm in the value of the value of overjang  JLREQ and JIS recommend a value of 1, but none of the browsers actually do this<br>
&lt;faceless> stanton: the suggestion of auto was to allow more flxibility<br>
&lt;faceless> myles: a length seems to fine grained. florian suggests auto with none, I agree. Second best option maybe large/small. Third best is multiple of font-size. All better than a length<br>
&lt;faceless> stanton: auto and none fits the user cases we see from authors<br>
&lt;faceless> fantasai: agrees with myles. auto vs none. length would resolve against the root elements length<br>
&lt;Rossen__> ack florian<br>
&lt;faceless> florian: we may well have different approaches later, maybe clarify this later but for now, auto<br>
&lt;fantasai> s/clarify this/clarify this or add more values/<br>
&lt;faceless> rossen: so we are comfortable with auto and not-auto? any objections? NOne? Result.<br>
&lt;faceless> s/NOne/None/<br>
&lt;faceless> RESOLVED: ruby-overhang auto | none on ruby container<br>
</details>


-- 
GitHub Notification of comment by css-meeting-bot
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/4492#issuecomment-578074029 using your GitHub account

Received on Friday, 24 January 2020 10:27:28 UTC