19253 2012-10-03 16:42:14 +0000 i18n-ISSUE-198: rt and rp elements 2014-03-06 23:14:09 +0000 1 1 1 Unclassified HTML WG HTML5 spec unspecified PC All VERIFIED FIXED CR P2 normal --- 1 www-international robin addison mike public-html-admin public-html-wg-issue-tracking travil www-international xn--mlform-iua public-html-bugzilla oldest_to_newest 75235 0 www-international 2012-10-03 16:42:14 +0000 (endorsed by the i18n WG) 4.6.20 The ruby element http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/the-ruby-element.html#the-ruby-element "An rp element followed by one or more rt elements, each of which is itself followed by an rp element" Have I misunderstood this, or is it saying that you could have something like: <ruby>BASE<rp>(</rp><rt>annotation1</rt><rp>)</rp><rt>annotation2</rt><rp>)</rt></ruby> or is it a typo, and should read "each of which is itself surrounded by an rp element"? 80859 1 erika.doyle 2013-01-02 23:37:17 +0000 Instead of "surrounded by", which might imply that the <rp> element actually contains the <rt> elements rather than being a sibling to them, how about the following: An rp element followed by one or more rt elements, followed by another rp element. Here is the staged change for review: https://github.com/w3c/html/commit/6b284107feab5267292377504977b37ca0a4d0f9 It changes this part of the spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/html51/text-level-semantics.html#the-ruby-element Also, given that "Contexts in which this element can be used" for <rp> elements states that: As a child of a ruby element, either immediately before or immediately after an rt element. http://www.w3.org/TR/html51/text-level-semantics.html#the-rp-element ...it is unclear whether the following would be allowed: <ruby>BASE<rp>(</rp><rt>annotation1</rt><rt>annotation2</rt><rp>)</rp></ruby> Is the i18n IG / HTML WG okay with this ambiguity, or should we be more strict and drop the "or more" part to only allow one <rt> element per <rp> pair? 81006 2 erika.doyle 2013-01-07 19:20:55 +0000 Robin will be working through all the ruby matters. 97589 3 robin 2013-12-13 14:24:47 +0000 EDITOR'S RESPONSE: This is an Editor's Response to your comment. If you are satisfied with this response, please change the state of this bug to CLOSED. If you have additional information and would like the Editor to reconsider, please reopen this bug. If you would like to escalate the issue to the full HTML Working Group, please add the TrackerRequest keyword to this bug, and suggest title and text for the Tracker Issue; or you may create a Tracker Issue yourself, if you are able to do so. For more details, see this document: http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/decision-policy.html Status: Partially Accepted Change Description: Complete overhaul of the section. Rationale: The section has been completely overhauled and your input has been taken into account. That said, there is no strict requirement for <rp> elements to appear in well-balanced pairs and the example you cite *could* sometimes apply. For instance, it could be used to place a comma between two annotations that would otherwise go above and below the base text. The section on <rp> has an example of that. 102026 4 addison 2014-03-06 23:14:09 +0000 I18N is satisfied by these changes. Thank you.