- From: Koji Ishii <kojiishi@gluesoft.co.jp>
- Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2014 08:32:30 +0000
- To: "public-i18n-cjk@w3.org" <public-i18n-cjk@w3.org>
Never mind on rp tag omission; that was pointed out before[4] and already fixed[5] in the ED. rtc not auto-closing rt still stands though. It’d be appreciated if this can be clarified. [4] http://www.w3.org/mid/20140210111143.C76D.17D6BAFB@newphoria.co.jp [5] http://www.w3.org/mid/CA+ri+Vmu1+Z6A6geoz+4bPX78DDi0L3Hyn758HmdvhaFN-K+gw@mail.gmail.com /koji On Mar 27, 2014, at 5:06 AM, Koji Ishii <kojiishi@gluesoft.co.jp> wrote: > Hi, > > A typo is in the “Tag omission in text/html” section of the <rp> element[1]: >> An rb element's end tag may be omitted if the rb element is immediately followed >> by an rb, rt, rtc or rp element, or if there is no more content in the parent element. > The first two “rb” are typo, should be “rp”. Note that 8.1.2.4 Optional tags section[2] looks ok. > > A question is about the “Tag omission in text/html” section of the <rt> element[3]. While rb, rtc, and rp elements auto-closes with rb, rt, rtc, or rp, only rt does not auto-close with rtc. Is this intentional? I can’t find good reasons not to auto-close rt with rtc. > > Double-sided ruby examples in the spec looks like expecting rt to auto-close with rtc, so I wonder this may also be a typo? > > [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/text-level-semantics.html#the-rp-element > [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/syntax.html#syntax-tag-omission > [3] http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/text-level-semantics.html#the-rt-element > > /koji > >
Received on Thursday, 27 March 2014 08:33:04 UTC