- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2011 16:06:22 +0000
- To: public-i18n-cjk@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=10830
Addison Phillips <addison@lab126.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|RESOLVED |REOPENED
Resolution|WONTFIX |
--- Comment #26 from Addison Phillips <addison@lab126.com> 2011-08-17 16:06:20 UTC ---
This is a response on behalf of the I18N WG. In Comment 19, the editor rejected
this change, citing the need for a feature that makes <rb> useful. The CJK
community and our own observation suggest that the <rb> tag is widely used by
content and widely supported by current and legacy browsers. We therefore feel
that it is contrary to general interoperability and backwards compatibility to
not include it in HTML5 as requested.
Non-IE browsers support the <rb> tag, including Firefox, Safari (WebKit),
Chrome, Opera, etc. In addition, IE9 provides support for the tag. Older IE
implementations did, indeed, not implement <rb>, but are not impaired by its
presence.
One important "feature" the <rb> element provides is the ability to style ruby
base text as distinct from the matching ruby text.
We agree that <rb> is not always necessary in order to implement basic ruby
markup in HTML5 documents and that it should be an *optional* element. However,
there is general consensus on the part of the Japanese community that it is
desirable to preserve this element. We would therefore like to request that you
restore the <rb> element as optional markup identifying the ruby base text
inside a <ruby> tag sequence.
--
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 Wednesday, 17 August 2011 16:06:23 UTC