- From: Xidorn Quan <quanxunzhen@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2015 00:36:54 +1100
- To: Koji Ishii <kojiishi@gmail.com>
- Cc: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Message-ID: <CAMdq699zo_Ndcj4hG6s26egi12cX_U1ywPrewXM-PoTwYv3mpw@mail.gmail.com>
Allowing this is trivial I guess, although makes the list even longer. I just checked the HTML5 specs, I guess we want them to be fixed as well. They both say <rp> represents nothing only if it is a child of <ruby>. - Xidorn 2015年2月25日 上午12:17于 "Koji Ishii" <kojiishi@gmail.com>写道: > 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 13:37:22 UTC