- From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2016 19:52:19 +0330
- To: Koji Ishii <kojiishi@gmail.com>, Xidorn Quan <quanxunzhen@gmail.com>
- Cc: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>, MURAKAMI Shinyu <murakami@antenna.co.jp>
On 11/13/2015 09:02 AM, Koji Ishii wrote: > On 11/11/2015 11:02 AM, Xidorn Quan wrote:> Hi, >> >> I have a question that, if the annotation of a character is >> autohidden, where should the emphasis mark be drawn for this >> character? >> >> The current spec says: >> # If emphasis marks are applied to characters for which ruby is drawn >> # in the same position as the emphasis mark, the emphasis marks are >> # placed outside the ruby. >> >> It reads to me that if the annotation is autohidden, the emphasis mark >> would be rendered immediately on top of the character, and in the same >> line as other annotations, is that correct? >> >> To be more clear, the question is, if we have ruby like: >> ふ がな >> 振り仮名 >> and we apply emphasis marks on it, which result makes more sense? >> 、、、、 >> ふ がな >> 振り仮名 >> or >> 、 、、 >> ふ、がな >> 振り仮名 >> ? > > The situation can happen without auto-hide, and I saw both examples, so > the spec avoids saying which specifically, only "emphasis marks come >outside of ruby" (figure 9 of the spec[1].) > > Authors may want to specify in future, or can live with either, I can't >answer at this moment. > > In my personal opinion, especially when the middle part is missing, the > former (consistent position) looks better. On the other hand, if emphasis > marks are on the whole paragraph, and only one character has ruby, the > latter might look better. Choosing either by auto-hide or not might be >one possible option. > > [1] https://drafts.csswg.org/css-text-decor-3/#text-emphasis-position-property There was previous discussion on the positioning of emphasis marks in the presence of ruby. See http://www.w3.org/mid/AEB4771C-8ED0-49DD-B444-34F2BE54F85F@w3.org continuing at https://www.w3.org/mid/4D277EC5.2050607@w3.org https://www.w3.org/mid/A592E245B36A8949BDB0A302B375FB4E201BF47330@MAILR001.mail.lan https://www.w3.org/mid/510C6999.9050000@inkedblade.net The conclusion was that the behavior illustrated in the spec is required, which is why we did not illustrate both options. :) See https://www.w3.org/mid/5136E94C.9010605@inkedblade.net That said, I think auto-hidden ruby is a special case, and we should probably spec Gecko's behavior for that. A related question is then, what about empty annotations? Should they match the behavior of auto-hidden ruby or non-annotated text? CCing Murakami-san for thoughts. :) ~fantasai
Received on Thursday, 22 December 2016 21:13:24 UTC