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

Re: [css-ruby] Default font-size of ruby annotation with ruby-position: inter-character

From: Koji Ishii <kojiishi@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2015 16:10:31 +0900
Message-ID: <CAN9ydbWU+eeKzxCQhP+NqyRjJ9UgRaVp2+ey+cx-JkFEnX5wuw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Xidorn Quan <quanxunzhen@gmail.com>
Cc: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
Clarified that it's UA dependent in Level 1[1]. How UAs render
Bopomofo and how much UAs do so interoperably is very unclear to me,
so I think this is the best for me as of this point. Please let me
know if any.

[1] http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css-ruby/#ruby-size


On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 1:11 AM, Koji Ishii <kojiishi@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 9:40 AM, Xidorn Quan <quanxunzhen@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hi,
>> According to documents provided by editors of CLReq, the standard font size
>> of bopomofo in inter-character ruby is 30% of the base text, not 50% like
>> Japanese ruby.
>> The current WebKit implementation introduces a new keyword
>> -webkit-ruby-text, and interpret this to 25% when ruby-position is
>> inter-character, and 50% otherwise.
>> I suggest that this behavior have its place in the spec, but I'm not sure
>> what's the best way to do so.
> Thank you for bringing this up. There was a request for a property to
> specify the ruby text size, but from spec-perspective, it was lower
> priority so we postponed. So one way is to spec what WebKit does,
> either by investigating or by asking, and if you implement, we'll get
> two implementations.
> The other option is you do whatever you like internally, and we don't
> need to spec.
> Whichever you prefer is fine with me, I just want to avoid to spec
> something that is low priority and won't be implemented by at least
> two UAs.
> What do you think?
> /koji
Received on Sunday, 11 January 2015 07:10:58 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Monday, 23 January 2023 02:14:47 UTC