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

[csswg-drafts] Issue: [css-ruby-1] Generating Parentheses needs more thought marked as css-ruby-1

From: r12a via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2016 14:44:47 +0000
To: www-international@w3.org
Message-ID: <issues.labeled-191715981-None-sysbot+gh@w3.org>
r12a has just labeled an issue for https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts
 as "css-ruby-1":

== [css-ruby-1] Generating Parentheses needs more thought ==
 A.3 Generating Parentheses
https://drafts.csswg.org/css-ruby-1/#default-parens

This section seems both a little oversimplified and overcomplicated at
 the same time. 

I think there are three scenarios:
1. rp markup is used
2. no rp, but interleaved markup
3. no rp and tabular markup
and they all need to be treated differently.

When `rp` is used, CSS needs to make the`rp` content visible.

> Unfortunately, because Selectors cannot match against text nodes, 
it’s not possible with CSS to express rules that will automatically 
and correctly add parentheses to unparenthesized ruby annotations in 
HTML. 

Actually, unless i'm missing something, it's easy in case 2.  Simply 
mark up the `rt` as follows:

```
rt { display: inline; font: inherit; ...}
rt::before { content: '('; }
rt::after { content: ')'; } 
```

For case 3, the `rb` tags need to be specified anyway, if it's really 
tabular (ie. involving more than one `rb`), so again i don't think the
 quoted text above is needed.

The problem is how to know whether you're dealing with case 1, 2 or 3,
 if there's a mix.

To be honest, this all seems rather complicated, and i find myself 
wishing i had an 'inline' property, like we used to, so that the 
browser could take care of this simply for me.

See https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/761
Received on Friday, 25 November 2016 14:44:53 UTC

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