- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2011 16:04:38 +0000
- To: public-i18n-cjk@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=10830 --- Comment #74 from Kang-Hao (Kenny) Lu <kennyluck@csail.mit.edu> 2011-11-30 16:04:36 UTC --- (In reply to comment #73) > (In reply to comment #72) > > If you modify your example to something like <ruby><rb>A<rt>B<rb>C<rt>D</ruby> > > then the "ruby parsing" won't work in FF8 and Safari 5.1. Although if I > > understand correctly it might work again because of bug 12935. > > Thinking about this again I think this statement is false. So I guess the risk here for allowing <rb> but not changing the auto-closing here is that authors might falsely think <ruby><rb>A<rt>B<rb>C<rt>D</ruby> would work. But is that a real problem given that <details><summary>A<div>B</details> doesn't work either? (though admittedly <ruby> is more like <dl>. One might argue about the inconsistency that <rb> doesn't have the auto-closing behavior of <rt> and <rp>, but we are deprecating <rp>, which I would agree to be a completely useless element, in the long run for authors, so I think this is less like a problem) And you could always do <ruby>A<rt>B</rt>C<rt>D</rt></ruby> instead of <ruby><rb>A</rb><rt>B</rt><rb>C</rb><rt>D</tt></ruby> if we make <rb> optional and you don't need extra tags to make you confident to use ruby. -- 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, 30 November 2011 16:05:04 UTC