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

Re: [css-ruby] Conflict with HTML5 spec

From: Xidorn Quan <quanxunzhen@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2015 09:52:03 +1100
Message-ID: <CAMdq69_RkHZV-u7uUjhHkHFadrS936ML_zdv5Z9_uicqPiurdQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Cc: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 9:40 AM, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
wrote:

> On 02/23/2015 05:22 PM, Xidorn Quan wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 8:10 AM, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net
>> <mailto:fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>> wrote:
>> >
>> > Personally I think it would be nice if <rb>B<rt>A</rt> just worked. :)
>> > It's much more convenient to type.
>>
>> I agree, but HTML spec guys don't seem to agree with us :)
>>
>
> Hm, we could raise an issue, particularly if it's something we have
> implemented. :)
>

Well, it could be hard, because WHATWG HTML5 doesn't have <rb> tag, and
allowing <rt> and <rp> to behave outside <ruby> doesn't seem to be sensible
enough.

 It looks fine, but shouldn't we also prefix
>> "ruby, rb, rt, rbc, rtc { unicode-bidi: isolate; }", and
>> "rtc:lang(zh-TW), rt:lang(zh-TW) { font-size: 25%; }"?
>>
>> Leaving "rtc:lang(zh), rt:lang(zh) { ruby-align: center; }" not to start
>> with "ruby >" is probably fine, though it could cause
>> confusing behavior in some cases.
>>
>
> Maybe? I'm not sure it's worth it, but I don't suppose it matters much.
>

At least "rtc:lang(zh-TW), rt:lang(zh-TW)" should be changed to keep the
consistency with "ruby > rtc, ruby > rt, rtc > rt" rule.

 And why did you change the font-size for bopomofo from 30% to 25%?
>>
>
> That was a mistake. Switched back.


Thanks.
Received on Monday, 23 February 2015 22:53:11 UTC

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