W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > February 2015

Re: [css-ruby] Auto value of ruby-position

From: Xidorn Quan <quanxunzhen@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2015 14:59:12 +1300
Message-ID: <CAMdq69_tg+dimVkxp9PE3=QJ2hcbk4vTq3TpfAwYjj=GHsjk0Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Cc: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On Sat, Feb 21, 2015 at 2:46 PM, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
wrote:

> On 02/20/2015 08:17 PM, Xidorn Quan wrote:
>
>> We recently received a request that, by default, position of annotation
>> should be different for the first and the second rtc
>> of a ruby segment. [1] I think this request is reasonable, and
>> double-sided ruby is actually the most common use case for more
>> than one ruby text container. And it is also something required by the
>> XHTML Ruby spec [2] (though no one implemented that).
>>
>> But regarding that the markups can be arbitrary for ruby, it is hard to
>> express this requirement simply in the default
>> stylesheet. Hence I propose again to add an "auto" value to
>> ruby-position, which was proposed before [3], and was not be
>> discussed because of lack of editor. [4]
>>
>> My proposal is: This value is not computed to anything else. And during
>> the positioning, this value is equal to "over" for rtc
>> in odd indexes, and "under" for rtc in even indexes.
>>
>> Does it sound like something we can add to the spec?
>>
>
> Overall, it sounds reasonable to me, but I think we should have
> a way to specify the first level, rather than always being over.
> Maybe
>   [ over | under ] || alternate
> instead? Or something else?


I'm a little concerned about this syntax, because "ruby-position" is
currently a property applied to <rtc>. The "alternate" doesn't seem like
something should be there. The value is effectively only "over", "under",
and "inter-character" for ruby-position. "alternate" seems more likely to
be something applied on <ruby>s.

Even if we want this syntax, I guess we probably shouldn't use "||" here if
the "over | under" is for the first level. Probably "[ over | under ] [
alternate ]?" is better.

- Xidorn
Received on Saturday, 21 February 2015 02:00:20 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:52:01 UTC