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