- From: Richard Ishida <ishida@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2013 15:27:26 +0000
- To: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
- CC: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>, 'WWW International' <www-international@w3.org>, CJK discussion <public-i18n-cjk@w3.org>, Ishii Koji <kojiishi@gluesoft.co.jp>
On 27/02/2013 15:13, Leif Halvard Silli wrote: > Richard Ishida, Wed, 27 Feb 2013 14:54:19 +0000: >> On 25/02/2013 23:31, fantasai wrote: >>> One thing I had suggested was to do the somewhat >>> confusing thing and make the <ruby> start tag >>> optional. This shortens markup slightly to >>> >>> <rb>B<rb>B<rt>a<rt>a</ruby> >>> >>> instead of (for the same DOM): >>> >>> <ruby><rb>B<rb>B<rt>a<rt>a</ruby> >> >> However, if you do that as a matter of course, and then someone comes >> along and wants to style the whole page so that, say, all base text >> is hidden for accessibility reasons, then they wont be able to style >> the initial base text in each ruby element. I think it's better to >> recommend that each item in a ruby element start with either <rb>, >> <rt> or <rtc>. > > An optional start tag would not mean that the <ruby> element would be > optional - the HTML parser would generate it. Fantasai’s proposal only > means that the <ruby> element would be auto-generated - and thus *would > be entirely possible to style* for accessibility reasons and any other > reason. Since it would probably be the presence of a <rb> that caused > the <ruby> to be auto-generated, fantasai’s proposal would implicitly > be strong recommendation to use <rb>. Well i, too, was very much hoping that what you describe here would be true. But when I asked Robin about it, he told me that there is no rb element in the DOM if there is no rb tag. Robin, did I get that right? Would it be difficult to change that? (Since I think it would help a lot.) RI -- Richard Ishida, W3C http://rishida.net/
Received on Wednesday, 6 March 2013 15:27:55 UTC