On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 5:24 PM, Koji Ishii <kojiishi@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 5:53 AM, Xidorn Quan <quanxunzhen@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> >> I have another suggestion. I found that in all use cases I had seen in >> JLREQ and specs, spanning is never directly connected with any previous >> separate-paired annotation. Is that make sense to only have span when an >> annotation is the only child of a <rtc>? I think that could significantly >> reduce the complexity on width calculation (which is the hardest part in my >> opinion) and line breaking. In addition, even if we drop spanning >> completely, we have to process this level of complexity to support >> ruby-merge anyway. >> > > I don't understand what you meant by "connected", > I meant, I found that spans do not immediately follow other annotations, so that use cases for spanning can be covered by the solution I proposed. > but do you mean to allow spanning only when there is only one <rt> child > for a <rtc>? If that's the case, I think it's reasonable. If I > misunderstood what you meant, can you clarify a bit more? > Yes, that's what I meant. That could significantly simplify handling spanning, since there won't be spans of different width in one segment. - Xidorn
Received on Thursday, 13 November 2014 06:40:36 UTC