[Bug 26424] Tag omission rules for rp could break invalid-but-existing content

https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=26424

--- Comment #8 from Koji Ishii <kojiishi@gluesoft.co.jp> ---
Thanks!

(In reply to William Chen from comment #7)
> (In reply to Koji Ishii from comment #5)
> > Can you paste the links you found?
> 
> http://reference.sitepoint.com/html/rp
> http://www.w3schools.com/TAgs/tag_rp.asp

These two don't render as ruby with IE10-, Chrome, and Safari. So changing rp
will fix these pages to IE 9 or before.

> http://html.eweb-design.com/0406_rub.html

This one relies on auto-closing behavior, so the resulting DOM will be changed
if we fix this bug. However, it will not make rendering worse at all.

> https://github.com/
> search?q=%3Cruby%3E%3Crt%3E%3Crp%3E&ref=searchresults&type=Code

I didn't know I can do this, thanks, this is quite nice!

I examined first 20; all of them are either:
a) fix broken ruby by the early HTML5 spec to IE9 or earlier (rp inside rt)
b) no changes in DOM (rp has nothing to auto-close)
c) changes DOM but rendering is not affected (rp auto-closes rb).

> These are results from a text-based search engine and github code search. I
> don't have a good tool to search web markup so I don't know how often these
> things show up in the wild.

I understand that. I think this issue is now not about how common it is, but
rather if there were any case where changing rp could break. These pages helped
me to confirm that my assumption (changing rp auto-closing rule is safe) is
still valid.

Note that the site who reported an issue [1] doesn't render as ruby either, and
he uses display:table-cell technique to look like ruby. I don't think there are
many sites that use the technique, but I might try to find rbc and rtc to
double-check later.

[1] http://ikilote.net/fr/Collection/Personnalit%C3%A9.html?id=394

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the QA Contact for the bug.

Received on Tuesday, 29 July 2014 00:46:42 UTC