- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2010 09:35:02 +0000
- To: public-i18n-cjk@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=10830
fantasai <fantasai.bugs@inkedblade.net> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|RESOLVED |REOPENED
CC| |fantasai.bugs@inkedblade.ne
| |t
Resolution|WONTFIX |
--- Comment #2 from fantasai <fantasai.bugs@inkedblade.net> 2010-09-30 09:35:02 UTC ---
In addition to the markup compatibility concerns raised above, there's another
one: that having an <rb> element allows styling of the ruby base text
independently of the ruby text. This is needed for example to control line
breaking: depending on type of ruby contents and on the styling of the
document, line breaking may or may not be allowed at otherwise-valid
breakpoints in the ruby base text.
I agree that in the general case, the markup is much simpler if ruby bases are
implied by the <rt> markup. However, in some cases it is necessary to have a
more concrete element to address.
--
Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You reported the bug.
Received on Thursday, 30 September 2010 09:35:05 UTC