[jlreq] Boten marks lack wide support (#173)

r12a has just created a new issue for https://github.com/w3c/jlreq:

== Boten marks lack wide support ==
There are <a href="https://w3c.github.io/i18n-tests/results/emphasis-marks">tests for boten mark support</a> that show that they are not supported by <span class="fail">Chrome</span> 63.0.3239.132 or <span class="fail">Edge</span>, but they are supported by <span class="pass">Firefox</span> 58.0 and <span class="pass">Safari</span> 11.0.3.

The expected behaviour for basic support of boten marks is <a href="https://drafts.csswg.org/css-text-decor-3/#emphasis-marks">specified in CSS</a>.

Given that there are alternative ways of showing emphasis, and although there are already two implementations, I  mark this as an advanced need.

Additional requirements arose while the text was being written for CSS. They relate to text that is annotated with ruby at the same time as annotation marks. The conclusions were:

<li> Emphasis marks go outside ruby.</li>
<li>If ruby only spans part of the emphasised word, emphasis marks stay as close as possible to the base.</li>
<li>Where a ruby annotation is hidden or empty, the emphasis marks should continue at the same height.</li>

JLReq also requires that emphasis marks not appear over commas, full stops and brackets.

There are currently no tests for these behaviours, and no requirements in jlreq for the former (with ruby). <strong>Need to take a closer look.</strong>

JLReq calls out the usual practise of using sesame shaped boten for vertical text, and bullets for horizontal. Controls for this exist in CSS, and tests show that it is supported by the browsers that support boten.

The default side for boten is to the right of vertical lines and above horizontal lines, according to JLReq. CSS controls allow this positioning to be set by the author, and in fact it is the default in both browsers that support boten for text where a lang tag identifies it as Japanese.

Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/jlreq/issues/173 using your GitHub account

Received on Monday, 3 February 2020 12:42:47 UTC