- From: Xidorn Quan via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 02 Feb 2021 11:01:09 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
My feeling is that it's easier to say treating the ruby annotation as empty in that case. Since we still have pairing, and there can be multiple levels, implementations still need to keep the ruby annotation itself, it would be more consistent for implementation not to treat it specially. Saying it as if "belonged to separate segments" and treating hidden annotation's base as "an intervening inline" means the annotation need to be treated as non-existent and the annotations before and after are separated, and they wouldn't impact each other, which is probably not what we want. -- GitHub Notification of comment by upsuper Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/2649#issuecomment-771554376 using your GitHub account -- Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Tuesday, 2 February 2021 11:01:11 UTC