Re: Ruby Markup Extensions implementation status and publication

This week I'm busy with the AC meeting and board meeting. The one after 
I'm on vacation. Can we do the one after?

—Florian

On 2026/04/21 9:04, Fuqiao Xue wrote:
> Sure, we can discuss this issue at this week's telecon (or next 
> week—if I don't manage to make it this week).
>
> ~xfq
>
>> On Apr 17, 2026, at 09:43, Florian Rivoal <florian@rivoal.net> wrote:
>>
>> 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
>>>
>