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

Re: [css-ruby] spanning of ruby annotations across excess bases

From: Xidorn Quan <quanxunzhen@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2014 09:52:20 +1100
Message-ID: <CAMdq69-HFvt0Njvy+=bPwpqN5Tdx74-JURYcXutV90nzCwxuKQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: kawabata taichi <kawabata.taichi@gmail.com>
Cc: "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 9:20 AM, kawabata taichi <kawabata.taichi@gmail.com>

> Dear David,
> On Sun, Nov 9, 2014 at 3:42 AM, L. David Baron <dbaron@dbaron.org> wrote:
>> http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css-ruby/#base-annotation-pairing says:
>>   # If there are not enough ruby annotations in a ruby annotation
>>   # container, the last one is paired with (spans across) any excess
>>   # ruby bases. (If there are not any in the ruby annotation
>>   # container, an anonymous empty one is assumed to exist.)
>> Is there actually a use case for this behavior, or is it really just
>> defining error handling?
> As far as I know, this is an intended behaviour based on existing use case.
> JLREQ usage (Fig. 3.61) usage is certainly rare, but it does have non-
> ignorable
> presence in various occasions.

Even if we drop the spanning support here, it can still be achieved with
nested ruby. Given that it is rare, and is usually used only on a single
word which is not surrounded by other ruby boxes, I think using nested
markup instead is an acceptable solution.

Also, it copes with HTML5 Ruby behaviour.
> cf.
> http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/text-level-semantics.html#annotation-pairing
> - When ruby-base elements excesses, all of them matched into last of
> existing ruby base.
> - When ruby-text elements excesses, it matches to virtual empty ruby texts,

Yes, we have that in W3C HTML5, but we don't have it in WHATWG HTML5. I
think the behavior defined in W3C HTML5 is just a simplified version of
that in Ruby Anotation spec for XHTML http://www.w3.org/TR/ruby/ . Given
the use cases proposed in XHTML spec, I think nested ruby is even better in
semantics for many of them.

- Xidorn
Received on Tuesday, 11 November 2014 22:53:27 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:08:48 UTC