- From: Xidorn Quan via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Sat, 24 Apr 2021 11:50:16 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
I don't think I agree with this decision. It doesn't sound useful to define the behavior this way. Why would any reasonable developer would want to assign a ruby internal `display` value to a replaced element? If they want to see such element in ruby base or annotation, just drop it into a `<rb>` or `<rt>`. Using those special value with replaced element also easily discards the semantics of ruby for non-CSS consumers. In addition, it doesn't seem to me that we have any precedence for this, e.g. we don't handle replaced element with table internal `display` values specially, fixing up them so that they can form part of the table, do we? I don't quite see why it's important to handle ruby internal `display` values specially. This would likely require impls to add extra code for an edge case which may just never happen. But I don't know how replaced elements should be handled in general with weird `display` values. If it's not defined anywhere, it's probably better to be defined in a general term, rather than case-by-case for each `display` values. I suggest that we just ignore the display internal values, and treat them as `inline` like what Gecko does currently. -- GitHub Notification of comment by upsuper Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/6000#issuecomment-826081277 using your GitHub account -- Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Saturday, 24 April 2021 11:50:18 UTC