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

Re: [css-ruby] Conflict with HTML5 spec

From: Koji Ishii <kojiishi@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2015 22:17:50 +0900
Message-ID: <CAN9ydbWX8xnfbhfyBc91BYQjSEWNx3FKXJGZuhXSRcaxrQbBVA@mail.gmail.com>
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

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