W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-international@w3.org > October to December 2016

[Bug 28265] [webvtt] incomplete ruby implementation [I18N-ISSUE-431]

From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2016 23:10:08 +0000
To: www-international@w3.org
Message-ID: <bug-28265-4285-1VIge5v8mN@http.www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/>
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=28265

--- Comment #26 from David Singer <singer@apple.com> ---
comment copied from GitHub:

After asking experts, I believe we have the following state:
<ruby> and <rt>:  
   are in the specification now
<rb>: 
    is in by implication (it's a normal part of <ruby> if I understand it
correctly), but we should be explicit
<rtc>:
    might be needed for some cases; should we include it? I am not aware of
need, myself.
<rp>:
    is only in HTML for backwards compatibility and is not needed.

Can we mention <rt> as being part of <ruby> and leave <rtc> for implementer
discretion and the future?

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Received on Wednesday, 16 November 2016 23:10:15 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:41:11 UTC