- From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2014 11:54:17 -0500
- To: Xidorn Quan <quanxunzhen@gmail.com>, Koji Ishii <kojiishi@gmail.com>
- CC: kawabata taichi <kawabata.taichi@gmail.com>, "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On 11/13/2014 01:39 AM, Xidorn Quan wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 5:24 PM, Koji Ishii <kojiishi@gmail.com <mailto:kojiishi@gmail.com>> wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 5:53 AM, Xidorn Quan <quanxunzhen@gmail.com <mailto: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. Yes, I don't see a problem here either. I would prefer, if it's possible, that we only span if the content is directly contained in an <rtc> rather than special-casing <rt>s that are the only child. Is that workable? That was the original goal: to make content directly contained by an <rtc> span all the bases. The effects on <rt> was just error-handling that fell out of that approach. ~fantasai
Received on Friday, 14 November 2014 16:54:51 UTC