- From: Xidorn Quan <quanxunzhen@gmail.com>
- Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2015 17:15:09 +1300
- To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Cc: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAMdq698y-fdnSqU=VA1N0uE-_NFgdniotppJtv+HNWwvUL6CUg@mail.gmail.com>
2015年2月21日 下午4:55于 "fantasai" <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>写道： > > On 02/20/2015 08:59 PM, Xidorn Quan wrote: >> >> >> 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. > > > It applies to <rtc>, but it inherits, so it could very well have > been specified on <ruby> or even <html>. > > Also, we try to avoid requiring particular order of keywords when > parsing is ambiguous. But if alternate is put in front of over/under, it would be pretty confused for authors to realize that the second value is for the first level. > I think in most cases people can just write: > ruby-position: alternate; > but if they want it to start on a different side, then > ruby-position: under alternate; We can simply make ruby-position: over alternate; the default value, which means authors just don't need to use the single 'alternate' at all, which also means it doesn't save any bits to allow the single keyword value 'alternate'. - Xidorn
Received on Saturday, 21 February 2015 04:15:36 UTC