W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-i18n-cjk@w3.org > January to March 2014

Re: [HTML5 Ruby] A typo and a question for Tag omission rules

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>
Message-ID: <104796B7-AC34-46F6-A6F0-1A665A68478C@gluesoft.co.jp>
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


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 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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 15:59:20 UTC