This is an archived snapshot of W3C's public bugzilla bug tracker, decommissioned in April 2019. Please see the home page for more details.
Prompted by http://crbug.com/150927 . Should <rp> tags be allowed under <ruby> tags? Currently they will be treated as "unrecognized", and hence end being dropped. As can be seen in the screenshot in the bug referenced above, this can give rise to odd-looking rendering even in UAs that support Ruby. (The rendering in non-supporting UAs will get pretty longwinded though...)
It certainly looks bad. OTOH the WebVTT generator could strip this. How popular is <rp> with Japanese subtitlers?
(In reply to Ralph Giles from comment #1) > It certainly looks bad. OTOH the WebVTT generator could strip this. I agree, and that would probably be my personal preference (i.e. "no change"). > How popular is <rp> with Japanese subtitlers? No idea. AFAICT, the referenced example is constructed.
I'm planning on aligning the WebVTT spec with the HTML spec once http://darobin.github.io/html-ruby/ has been sorted out. For now, I don't think we have any content that would be broken.
Just to clarify, you plan to adopt the full set of ruby tags from the HTML spec, including <rp>, <rb> etc?
(In reply to Ralph Giles from comment #4) > Just to clarify, you plan to adopt the full set of ruby tags from the HTML > spec, including <rp>, <rb> etc? I don't have enough knowledge myself about ruby-like needs, but Robin has done an enormous amount of research. It seems his proposal satisfies all the use cases. So, yes, I thought I would just accept all of the elements he is proposing. Are you against that?
The situation is: WebVTT has <ruby> and <rt> http://whatwg.org/html has <ruby>, <rt> and <rp> http://darobin.github.io/html-ruby/ has <ruby>, <rb>, <rt>, <rtc> and <rp> I do not think we should align with darobin's spec until it has been implemented for HTML in some browser with positive results. As for <rp>, the HTML spec says that "The rp element can be used to provide parentheses or other content around a ruby text component of a ruby annotation, to be shown by user agents that don't support ruby annotations." This seems somewhat odd to add for WebVTT, can't browsers that implement WebVTT also just implement the ruby bits? All in all, I would suggest no change for v1, unless that change can be shown to fix some cases that are common in subtitles. Silvia, do you support moving this to v2?
(In reply to Philip Jägenstedt from comment #6) > As for <rp>, the HTML spec says that "The rp element can be used to provide > parentheses or other content around a ruby text component of a ruby > annotation, to be shown by user agents that don't support ruby annotations." That was my thought as well. The counter-argument is that it's nice to copy/paste ruby markup in html, so supporting the same tag set is nicer for authors. We looked and didn't find any wild examples of <rp> in subtitles. > Silvia, do you support moving this to v2? FWIW I think postponing is a fine idea. I don't expect we'll have resources to implement this in Firefox in the near term.
Moving to v2. I too wanted to wait until browsers implement the <ruby> related tags.
Closing as a duplicate of Bug 28265. If we come across a need for <rp>, we can always re-open this. *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 28265 ***