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: Tue, 13 Jan 2015 19:43:48 +0900
Message-ID: <CAN9ydbU=YZqnjJzRwZuZfdGtX82d78h1FViZdRvBP7UcKSyofw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Xidorn Quan <quanxunzhen@gmail.com>
Cc: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
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?

Received on Tuesday, 13 January 2015 10:44:14 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:08:50 UTC