Re: [css-text-decor] Emphasis marks and auto-hiding ruby annotation

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]

There was previous discussion on the positioning of emphasis marks
in the presence of ruby. See
     continuing at

The conclusion was that the behavior illustrated in the spec is required,
which is why we did not illustrate both options. :) See

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. :)


Received on Thursday, 22 December 2016 21:13:24 UTC