W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-bugzilla@w3.org > June 2011

[Bug 12935] <rt> should not auto-close ancestors

From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2011 11:22:08 +0000
To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1QWRhA-0007Zm-Aj@jessica.w3.org>
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=12935

Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|RESOLVED                    |REOPENED
         Resolution|FIXED                       |

--- Comment #15 from Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi> 2011-06-14 11:22:07 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #14)
> (In reply to comment #13)
> > Actually, "generate implied end tags" closes rp and rt but not rb. Hixie, I
> > think rb should be added to "generate implied end tags".
> 
> Moreover, after experimenting with an implementation, I think rb should behave
> exactly like rt and rp everywhere in the tree builder.
> 
> First, it would be bizarre if <rt> closed <rp> but didn't close <rb>. Second,
> it would be bizarre if <rt> closed <rb> but <rb> didn't close <rb> when there
> are multiple <rb>s inside <rbc>.

And even with that change, this still produces a surprising result:
<ruby><rbc><rb>a<rb>b<rb>c</rbc><rp>(<rtc><rt>e<rt>f<rt>g</rtc><rp>)</ruby>
(rtc goes inside an rp.)

Reopening for more careful consideration. It seems like rtc (maybe rbc) should
generate implied end tags.

bz, fantasai: Does it still make sense to even try to implement Complex Ruby?
Isn't it always possible to decompose Complex Ruby into several Simple Rubies
that would have the benefit of working in legacy IE?

That is, why would you write 
<ruby><rbc><rb>A<rb>B</rbc><rtc><rt>a<rt>b</rtc></ruby> instead of 
<ruby>A<rt>a</ruby><ruby>B<rt>b</ruby>? Are there line breaking or styling
benefits from using a single Complex Ruby instead of multiple Simple Rubies?

I realize that the design of <rp> makes Complex Ruby degrade more gracefully
when the degradation target is a browser with no Ruby support whatsoever, but
it's more realistic to expect that at this point, the main degradation target
will be legacy IE (unless old versions the Android default browser manage to
become a worse problem than legacy IE...).

-- 
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 Tuesday, 14 June 2011 11:22:09 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:01:52 UTC