- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2011 11:49:02 +0000
- To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=12935 --- Comment #7 from Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi> 2011-06-13 11:48:57 UTC --- (In reply to comment #6) > Hmm. If we do want to handle the second issue, we could just pop to ruby or > rtc... If we are confident that we don't want to introduce more elements than what the old Ruby spec had and if we like implied tags, then it would make sense to: 1) Make rt pop until ruby *or* rtc whichever is seen first (still only if there's ruby in scope). 2) Make rb pop until ruby *or* rbc whichever is seen first (still only if there's ruby in scope). 3) Make rbc and rtc behave like rp behaves now. > If we don't want to handle it, then I _think_ your proposed change does what I > want, but I'd like Henri to confirm: he's a lot more familiar with this neck of > the woods than I am. If we only did what Hixie said, we'd lose implicit closing of rb and rp in the simple Ruby case. How much do we want to keep the simple Ruby case old IE-like and how much do we want to support tag omission? -- Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug.
Received on Monday, 13 June 2011 11:49:04 UTC