[i18n-activity] [css-ruby] Need to explicitly mention the default placement of ruby with 2 sets of annotations (#1866)

r12a has just created a new issue for https://github.com/w3c/i18n-activity:

== [css-ruby] Need to explicitly mention the default placement of ruby with 2 sets of annotations ==
## Proposed comment

The browser parsers already support most of what is needed for ruby, but a key challenge at the moment is that when there are two sets of ruby annotations they are not placed correctly by some browser engines. 

There are examples of what to do in the spec, but i couldn't find any normative text or anything in the Rendering section to indicate the expected default positioning of the items around the base.  This can be styled by the author using the CSS Ruby spec, but that is putting the cart before the horse.  I think this spec needs to specify a default (ie. without CSS declarations) placement, ie. that the two items should go on opposite sides of the base.  Which goes where can probably be left to the browser implementer (leaving latitude for them to factor in language-related positioning), but we shouldn't see both annotations on the same side of the base, or one set of annotations trailing along the baseline after the rest of the ruby element.




## Instructions: 

This follows the process at https://w3c.github.io/i18n-activity/guidelines/review-instructions.html

1. Create the review comment you want to propose by replacing the prompts above these instructions, but **LEAVE ALL THE INSTRUCTIONS INTACT** 

2. **Add one or more t:... labels. These should use ids from specdev establish a link to that doc.**

2. Set a label to identify the spec: this starts with s: followed by the spec's short name. If you are unable to do that, ask a W3C staff contact to help.

3. Ask the i18n WG to review your comment.

4. After discussion with the i18n WG, raise an issue in the repository of the WG that owns the spec. Use the text above these instructions as the starting point for that comment, but add any suggestions that arose from the i18n WG. In the other WG's repo, add an 'i18n-needs-resolution' label to the new issue. If you think any of the participants in layout requirements task force groups would be interested in following the discussion, add also the appropriate i18n-\*lreq label(s).

5. Delete the text below that says 'url_for_the_issue_raised', then add in its place the URL for the issue you raised in the other WG's repository. Do NOT remove the initial '§ '. Do NOT use \[...](...) notation – you need to delete the placeholder, then paste the URL.

6. Remove the 'pending' label, and add a 'needs-resolution' tag to this tracker issue. 

7. If you added an \*lreq label, add the label 'spec-type-issue', add the corresponding language label, and a label to indicate the relevant typographic feature(s), eg. 'i:line_breaking'. The latter represent categories related to the Language Enablement Index, and all start with i:.

8. Edit this issue to **REMOVE ALL THE INSTRUCTIONS & THE PROPOSED COMMENT**, ie. the line below that is '---' and all the text before it to the very start of the issue.

---


**This is a tracker issue.** Only discuss things here if they are i18n WG internal meta-discussions about the issue. **Contribute to the actual discussion at the following link:**


§ url_for_the_issue_raised


Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/i18n-activity/issues/1866 using your GitHub account


-- 
Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config

Received on Wednesday, 19 June 2024 15:01:20 UTC