Re: [css-ruby] Proposal to publish new WD

On 12/01/2010 12:30 PM, Richard Ishida wrote:
> Folks,
> I'd like to publish the version of the CSS3 Ruby Module at
> as a new WD.  This will take the ruby module out of CR and revert it to a Working Draft.
> Before publishing I'd like to apply all change marks in the editor's
> version of the document, *with the exception of* those in Section 4.1,
> so I'd like the Working Group to comment on whether those proposed
> changes are controversial.  They are essentially editorial in nature,
> but note, in particular, that I have replaced most references to JIS
> X-4051 with references to Requirements for Japanese Text Layout
> (
> I expect all editorial notes and change marks in section 4.1 to remain.

I've reviewed the changes, and I agree with all of them except the ones
in 4.1. I would like to see the following changes before publication:
  - all of the suggested changes outside of 4.1 incorporated into
    the text
  - the editorial changes to the note about traditional Chinese
    in 4.1 incorporated into the text
  - all other changes in 4.1 converted to "Issue" comments, if
    they are kept

With regards to the changes in 4.1:

   I don't understand the use case for ruby-position: inline.
   Why not use display: inline?

   With regards to bopomofo, I think that
   - 'right' should remain 'right', and not change to 'bopomofo'.
     Certainly the main use case it is solving is bopomofo, but
     bopomofo can be written other ways, and there's no reason
     this style of ruby can't be used for other things.

   - 'ruby-position: right' should force the ruby text into
     vertical writing mode--i.e. the computed value of 'writing-mode'
     is forced based on the 'ruby-position' value. This makes the
     rendering of non-bopomofo ruby defined.

   - The paragraphs on bopomofo rendering and tone marks should
     be separated out into their own section. IIRC bopomofo has
     special handling requirements in both horizontal and vertical
     writing modes, and these apply whether it's rendered as CSS ruby
     or inline. So although it might be a good idea to describe these
     requirements in this specification, I believe that, like Arabic
     shaping and bidi, these should be handled at the text rendering
     layer, not the CSS ruby layout layer.


Received on Wednesday, 1 December 2010 19:18:25 UTC