- From: Koji Ishii <kojiishi@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2015 22:17:50 +0900
- To: Xidorn Quan <quanxunzhen@gmail.com>
- Cc: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
I'm not really reviewing the spec carefully, nor your list either, but one thing I remember is that we allow rp inside rt, so this should be covered. Originally it was not allowed, and then we found it broke existing sites. The bug is here[1], Robin fixed the spec IIUC, and parser impls followed this fix. [1] https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=26424 On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 7:32 PM, Xidorn Quan <quanxunzhen@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 1:29 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> > wrote: >> >> On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 2:40 PM, 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. :) >> >> I'd prefer less anonymous box construction. If people don't put >> <ruby>, it's an authoring mistake; there's no real need to "correct" >> things here. (Particularly because of the non-obvious requirement for >> the last internal ruby element to be explicitly closed, when in all >> other cases you can omit the closing tag.) > > > I'm going to use this code (if no objection from the reviewer, though): > > ruby { > display: ruby; > } > ruby > rp, > ruby > rbc > rp, > ruby > rtc > rp { > display: none; > } > ruby > rbc { > display: ruby-base-container; > } > ruby > rtc { > display: ruby-text-container; > } > ruby > rb, > ruby > rbc > rb { > display: ruby-base; > white-space: nowrap; > } > ruby > rt, > ruby > rtc > rt { > display: ruby-text; > } > ruby > rt, > ruby > rtc, > ruby > rtc > rt { > font-variant-east-asian: ruby; > text-emphasis: none; > white-space: nowrap; > line-height: 1; > } > ruby > rt, > ruby > rtc { > font-size: 50%; > } > ruby, > ruby > rb, > ruby > rt, > ruby > rbc, > ruby > rtc, > ruby > rbc > rb, > ruby > rtc > rt { > unicode-bidi: isolate; > } > > It is a bit long, but it seems that this could match what the HTML spec > wants us to do. > > - Xidorn
Received on Tuesday, 24 February 2015 13:18:17 UTC