W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > July 2014

Re: [css-ruby] Nested Ruby

From: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
Date: Wed, 09 Jul 2014 12:07:57 -0400
Message-ID: <53BD68DD.7040703@mit.edu>
To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, www-style@w3.org
On 7/9/14, 11:38 AM, fantasai wrote:
> I think they're all handled, actually. If something's unclear or
> seems weird, let me know?

Hmm, you're right.  Looks like this addressed most of the issues I had. 
  Remaining issues:

1)  http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css-ruby/#box-fixup talks about white space 
in general, but http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css-ruby/#white-space has 
overlapping normative requirements that specifically call out 
collapsible white space.  Except if #box-fixup is applied first, you 
can't even get white space in the situations #white-space is talking 
about, since it all got dropped (independently of whether it's 
collapsible or not).

2)  It's not clear that in step 4 
(<http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css-ruby/#anon-gen-bare-inlines>) the 
anonymous boxes around intra-ruby white space are not actually created, 
though later steps afaict depend on them not actually being created, 
right?  Otherwise this markup:

   <div style="display:ruby">
     <div style="display:ruby-text"></div>
     <div style="display:ruby-text"></div>

would create a ruby base between the two ruby annotations, which would 
then be flagged as inter-annotation white space, but still be a ruby 
base for purposes of step 8 
(<http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css-ruby/#anon-gen-anon-containers>) which is 
not what we want in step 8.  I guess step 6 is what really creates 
wrappers for this situation, not step 4, right?  Does it really create a 
ruby annotation box, though, or just treat the whitespace as one for 
purposes of anonymous wrapping?  I assume it's the latter, since for 
pairing purposes we want to ignore inter-annotation white space. 
Although it would also be OK to explicitly say so in the pairing section 
and wrap the whitespace in a ruby annotation, either way...

3)  I still think the table in step 5 
(<http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css-ruby/#anon-gen-discard-space>) can be 
boiled down to two rules:

   I.  Next box is ruby annotation container.
   II. Next box is ruby annotation and previous box is not ruby

whether that's clearer, I'm not sure.

But yes, this is looking much better!

Received on Wednesday, 9 July 2014 16:08:26 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:08:44 UTC