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 >> > 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. > BTW, it might also make sense to change "rtc > rt" to "ruby > rtc > rt". But... hmm... it becomes too complicated... I wonder whether we can raise an issue to change the HTML parsing algorithm to remove those outstanding tags, just like what we do for internal table elements. I need to investigate how that works in the spec. - XidornReceived on Monday, 23 February 2015 23:03:43 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:08:51 UTC