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

Re: [css-ruby] About Ruby anonymous box creation.

From: kawabata taichi <kawabata.taichi@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 12 May 2014 18:05:55 +0900
Message-ID: <CA+PRW99FMH6v9-U0Mp2a1cztQ18G9sBjqxf3T1GHwnAYY2ODww@mail.gmail.com>
To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Cc: Koji Ishii <kojiishi@gluesoft.co.jp>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>, "public-i18n-cjk@w3.org" <public-i18n-cjk@w3.org>
Dear fantasai,

Could you take a look at
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2014Mar/0392.html and
give me a feedback?

Current my idea is to define pairing of ruby loosely in HTML5, and
strictly in "CSS Ruby". To minimize the risk of removal of new Ruby
model in current HTML5 CR, and also to minimize the potential
divergence between HTML and CSS Ruby Specs, I think strict algorithm
should appear in CSS, but not in HTML5.

Strict implementation of Segmentation and Categorisation of Ruby is
not necessary in HTML5 if <rp> is fully utilized and <rb> and <rt>
text inline elements are lined as is.

What I mean for "loose definition" is something like "a consecutive
sequence of <rb> elements consists a base part of ruby, and the
following consecutive <rt> or <rtc> elements are corresponding text
part(s) of ruby of preceding sequence of <rb> elements".

Please let me know if anyone is interested in discussion of this
issue. Currently, I'm planning off-line meeting to be held in Friday
of this week.

With best regards,

On Sat, May 10, 2014 at 3:55 AM, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>wrote:

> FWIW, I agree with Kawabata-san that the pairing of ruby should be
> defined in both specs. CSS needs to define it for layout purposes,
> even if the markup is not <ruby> markup. HTML needs to define it
> for semantic purposes, even if CSS is not used. Speech for example
> is a rendering of HTML ruby markup that does not use CSS layout.
> Yes, this creates the potential for divergence between the HTML
> and CSS specs. The editors of these specs must be diligent to
> prevent that from happening. But also, if the specs diverge it
> means that there is something to look at more closely, since at
> least one of them is not correct. Therefore writing the pairing
> algorithm twice can be a benefit, and hopefully implementors
> will help us to notice any such discrepencies and fix them.
> ~fantasai

川幡 太一 (KAWABATA, Taichi) E-mail: kawabata.taichi@gmail.com
Received on Monday, 12 May 2014 09:06:23 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:08:42 UTC