Re: [css-ruby] Conflict with HTML5 spec

Added
  ruby > rb > rp,
  ruby > rt > rp,
  ruby > rbc > rb > rp,
  ruby > rtc > rt > rp
to my local code.

Probably enough.

- Xidorn

On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 12:17 AM, Koji Ishii <kojiishi@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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
>