26426 2014-07-24 10:23:07 +0000 rb causing a parser error if current node is not ruby could break old content 2016-10-25 09:27:05 +0000 1 1 1 Unclassified HTML WG HTML5 spec unspecified All All RESOLVED MOVED whatwg-resolved P0 normal --- 1 kojiishi dave.null annevk fantasai.bugs mike public-html-admin public-html-wg-issue-tracking travil VYV03354 yuki.sekiguchi robin oldest_to_newest 109244 0 kojiishi 2014-07-24 10:23:07 +0000 Tree construction, The "in body" insertion mode <http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/syntax.html#parsing-main-inbody> states that: A start tag whose tag name is one of: "rb", "rp", "rtc" If the stack of open elements has a ruby element in scope, then generate implied end tags. If the current node is not then a ruby element, this is a parse error. This rule could break existing HTML + XHTML Ruby annotation content because they could use rbc tags: <ruby><rbc><rb>base</rb></rbc>... Such content will be a parse error because rb is not a direct child of ruby. Should we loosen the rule to require rb being the direct child of ruby? 109246 1 fantasai.bugs 2014-07-24 11:02:41 +0000 I think * <rb> should only generate implied end tags for <rb>,<rt>,<rtc>,<rp> * <rt> should only generate implied end tags for <rb>,<rt>,<rtc>,<rp> * <rtc> should only generate implied end tags for <rb>,<rt>,<rtc>,<rp> * <rp> should not generate implied end tags for anything (bug 26424). 109310 2 kojiishi 2014-07-26 12:40:45 +0000 Changing auto-closing rules doesn't help this. Because rbc is not defined in HTML5, we can't define its auto-closing rules. In other words, I could say following fragments exist in the wild: <ruby><any><rb>base</rb></any>...</ruby> and the <any> is an undefined element. If this fragment is defined as a parser error, we're likely to break a lot of existing documents that follow XHTML Ruby Annotation spec. 109401 3 kojiishi 2014-07-28 18:42:33 +0000 After some more tests, I confirmed that having <rbc> doesn't render as proper ruby even before the spec change, so I'd put lower priority. Gecko, after the spec change was implemented, starts showing this as a parser error in Source view because <rb> is now defined, as discussed in https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1042885 121035 4 mike 2015-06-16 10:10:33 +0000 Agree that it would be good to have a spec change here, and raising priority after reviewing implementer feedback. 126239 5 travil 2016-04-27 22:37:35 +0000 HTML5.1 Bugzilla Bug Triage: Moved to Github issue: https://github.com/w3c/html/issues/291 To file additional issues please use the W3C HTML5 Issue tracker: https://github.com/w3c/html/issues/new Thanks!