This is an archived snapshot of W3C's public bugzilla bug tracker, decommissioned in April 2019. Please see the home page for more details.
WHATWG and the W3C seem to disagree on the status of <rb> and <rtc>. The W3C HTML spec contains examples such as: <ruby>法<rb>華<rb>経<rt>ほ<rt>け<rt>きょう</ruby> and contains text in http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/syntax.html#closing-elements-that-have-implied-end-tags which ensures that the <rb> is parsed correctly. On the other hand, the WHATWG spec explicitly lists <rb> as "non-conforming" in http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/obsolete.html#non-conforming-features and contains text in http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/tree-construction.html#closing-elements-that-have-implied-end-tags which *doesn't list* rb or rtc, ensuring that the example in the W3C HTML spec will be parsed incorrectly (the <rb> tag won't be closed until the </ruby>). This is a mess. I haven't tested all browsers, but Chrome (at least) implements the WHATWG parsing algorithm, not the W3C one. If the W3C plans to keep the rb/rtc elements, I suggest that they deprecate the "implicit close" on those elements, warning authors that they need to include explicit close tags if they want existing browsers to parse them correctly. Alternatively, if the WHATWG is feeling generous, they could add rb/rtc to their parsing spec so that browsers parse rb/rtc correctly, even if they don't "like" those elements.
you probably want to change the component on this bug
(In reply to C. Scott Ananian from comment #0) > This is a mess. I haven't tested all browsers, but Chrome (at least) > implements the WHATWG parsing algorithm, not the W3C one. As things that aren't yet stable (ruby support is only just maturing) evolve, discrepancies arise. This is certainly unfortunate but while we work to minimise them at times they are required. The ruby improvements in the W3C version have now been added to WebKit and Gecko. I expect them to make their way into other implementations as well, though of course I cannot speak for them. Irrespective of opinions and differences, the ultimate reality is what eventually ships and gets used, and the specifications will align on that. In the meantime, I don't think that this bug is in the right component, and I am not sure that it needs to remain open. If you are implementing and are facing issues, please don't hesitate to email me to see if I can help.
Closing as a dup of bug 26189. Sorry about the Component mixup. *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 26189 ***