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: Thu, 13 Nov 2014 17:39:29 +1100
Message-ID: <CAMdq69_TXNvJt1AmJDPJpaK-S_zTurRum5fVCFWHznfMdwTAuw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Koji Ishii <kojiishi@gmail.com>
Cc: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, kawabata taichi <kawabata.taichi@gmail.com>, "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Monday, 23 January 2023 02:14:45 UTC