Re: Ruby Markup Extensions implementation status and publication

Okay, sure, no problem.

I'm also busy with the AC meeting this week, but I'd like to attend my telecons as much as possible.

Fuqiao

> On Apr 21, 2026, at 12:28, Florian Rivoal <florian@rivoal.net> wrote:
> 
> 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> <mailto: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/. You can find it at 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
>>>> 
>>>> 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
>>>> 
>>