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

Comments inline:

On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 8:54 PM, Xidorn Quan <quanxunzhen@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> It seems that the document on w3c's site hasn't been updated, but I see
> the update in the github repo. You probably forgot to sync the two
> documents in this commit:
> https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/commit/64bb2ea3c48a9455e2d21a38e197cfb02ddf4c11
>

github to hg sync takes a bit of time, depends on how much queued as far as
I understand. It looks like it's in sync now. Sorry for the confusion to
send "done" before it's sync'ed.


> In addition, the spec says:
>>>
>>> > This level of the specification does not provide a mechanism to
>>> control the size of ruby annotations.
>>>
>>> I think we do have mechanism for authors to control the font size of
>>> ruby annotations, which is the font-size property.
>>>
>>
>> Right, added "relative to ruby base." Does this resolve the concern?
>>
>
> Sorry, but I don't think so. Maybe something like, this level of the spec
> dose not define any additional mechanism to automatically compute the font
> size according to ruby properties or content of ruby annotations.
>

Ok, "relative to" can contain % font-size we support today, make sense.

It might probably be better to mention that the default style sheet is not
>>> normative, and say that UAs are free to behave a different way for some of
>>> the styles.
>>>
>>
>>  It's already there; Appendix A says it's informative.
>>
>
> I meant that it might be better to mention in the Ruby Font Size section
> in addition that font-size: 50% in the default style sheet is not
> normative, and the font size of annotation is actually impl-dependent. But
> I feel that impl-dependent behavior is evil for web standard. I'm not quite
> sure what should happen here.
>

Yeah, I believe it's technically accurate, but may be confusing. Added a
note to Appendix A.1. How is this?

/koji