We also probably need to define what should happen when the number of bases and annotations do not match. Now this is just an error handling. Xidorn, any preferences from implementation point of view? The other feedback I got from Xidorn off the list was that when ruby-merge:collapse, auto-hiding should consider boxes are collapsed and therefore should not compare each original boxes. We should clarify that in the spec unless someone objects. On Sat, Nov 15, 2014 at 6:55 AM, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net> wrote: > On 11/14/2014 04:14 PM, Xidorn Quan wrote: > >> On Sat, Nov 15, 2014 at 3:54 AM, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net >> <mailto:fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>> wrote: >> >> >> 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. >>> >> >> >> I think it's workable. But I prefer the spec to say something like >> "If the only child of an <rtc> is an anonymous <rt>, which means >> that all content is directly contained by the <rtc>, it spans all >> the bases." so that we do not need to complexify the anonymous box >> generation part, and we won't apply something on <rt>s but forgot >> the content directly inside <rtc>s. Does that make sense? >> > > Yes, that sounds exactly right. I will updated the spec accordingly. > > ~fantasai >
Received on Sunday, 16 November 2014 03:41:27 UTC