- From: Robin Berjon <robin@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 07 Mar 2013 16:40:36 +0100
- To: Richard Ishida <ishida@w3.org>
- CC: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>, 'WWW International' <www-international@w3.org>, CJK discussion <public-i18n-cjk@w3.org>, Ishii Koji <kojiishi@gluesoft.co.jp>
On 06/03/2013 16:27 , Richard Ishida wrote: > On 27/02/2013 15:13, Leif Halvard Silli wrote: >> Richard Ishida, Wed, 27 Feb 2013 14:54:19 +0000: >>> On 25/02/2013 23:31, fantasai wrote: >>>> One thing I had suggested was to do the somewhat >>>> confusing thing and make the <ruby> start tag >>>> optional. This shortens markup slightly to >>>> >>>> <rb>B<rb>B<rt>a<rt>a</ruby> >>>> >>>> instead of (for the same DOM): >>>> >>>> <ruby><rb>B<rb>B<rt>a<rt>a</ruby> I forgot to say: independently of whether the parsing algorithm is changed to generate elements it is also possible to support the above. But I'm not sure that it's a great idea: the processing model for <rb>, etc. that don't have a <ruby> parent would have to be different from that in a <ruby> parent, which makes it rather messy. Either that or we'd have to drop things like the ability to have automatic anonymous bases even when inside <ruby>. At some point I think the complexity gets out of hand (including for authors since you'd either have two different authoring rules depending on context or less friendly authoring rules everywhere). -- Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/ - @robinberjon
Received on Thursday, 7 March 2013 15:40:51 UTC