Re: Ruby Markup Extensions implementation status and publication

Hi all,

Now that the group has rechartered, could we consider this?

—Florian

On 2026/03/06 1:26, Florian Rivoal wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> I wrote a test suite for https://www.w3.org/TR/html-ruby-extensions/ 
> <https://www.w3.org/TR/html-ruby-extensions/>. You can find it at 
> https://github.com/web-platform-tests/wpt/pull/58150 
> <https://github.com/web-platform-tests/wpt/pull/58150> or 
> https://github.com/web-platform-tests/wpt/tree/master/html-ruby-extensions 
> . (Advice to anyone who wants to read or used these tests: start with 
> the README.md 
> <https://github.com/web-platform-tests/wpt/blob/master/html-ruby-extensions/README.md>)
>
> I also made an implementation report based on that test suite, to 
> assess how far along implementations are: 
> https://w3c.github.io/html-ruby/implementation-report-2026-03 
> <https://w3c.github.io/html-ruby/implementation-report-2026-03>
>
> You can see the details in the report itself, but the key take away is 
> that:
>
>   * All but two tests pertaining to ruby base markup and |<rb>| pass
>     in two implementations: Firefox and Kindle. Two (error handling
>     cases) fails in Kindle, of which one does pass in the three
>     browser implementations (Chrome, Firefox and Safari) and one
>     passes in Firefox only.
>   * All tests pertaining to the |<rtc>| element pass in one
>     implementation: Firefox.
>
> Aside for the two bugs in Kindle, this is what I expected would be the 
> case, but it's good to have it confirmed.
>
> We should soon have the results of the proposed recharter for the i18n 
> WG. Assuming it goes well, once that charter is approved, I would 
> recommend that we publish the spec as a CR. There are a couple of 
> editorial issues open that we'll need to wrap up as well, but that can 
> be done after CR anyway, and I think we meet all criteria.
>
> Actually, based on the implementation report above, and leaning into 
> the proposed charter's suggestion that this spec “[…] may be split 
> into multiple “levels” based on feature implementation status”, we 
> could split the ruby markup extension spec into two levels, with rtc 
> in level 2, and everything else in level 1. Depending on how strict we 
> need to be about the error handling cases, I believe we might be able 
> to take such a level 1 to REC and level 2 to CR. We should discuss 
> whether we think it is best to create such levels, or whether we 
> prefer to keep everything together in a single document.
>
> In any case, I'd like to request that, post recharter, we put on the 
> agenda the question of republishing and advancing the spec on the REC 
> track.
>
> —Florian
>