To run the test, or to see detailed, per character, results, click on the link in the left-most column. To see detailed results click on a row and look just above the table.
| Key: | pass | fail | partially successful |
|---|
These tests check whether user agents support styling and basic default positioning of markup based on ruby markup, including the elements ruby, rb, rt, and rtc.
Tests are provided for the range of ruby-related elements specified in the W3C HTML 5.3 specification. The WhatWG HTML specification omits the rb and rtc elements.
They do not test the features of the CSS Ruby module, just whether the structure of the ruby markup is recognised by the browsers, and whether those minimal features needed to position the ruby text are available without CSS styling.
These tests check that the browser is able to identify and style the various elements that make up the ruby content. Where there are multiple tests, each test uses a different approach to markup, eg. both start and end tags, or just start tags.
Needless to say, markup styles that omit the rb element tags don't allow the rb content to be styled.
Is the rb element detected and styled, for interleaved ruby elements?
Is the rb element detected and styled, for tabular ruby elements?
Is the rt element detected and styled, for interleaved ruby elements?
Is the rt element detected and styled, for tabular ruby elements?
Can the span element be used to style a portion of the rb or rt text?
These tests are exploratory. The HTML spec doesn't actually indicate how ruby bases and annotations should be positioned relative to each other, it is concerned with associating the right base with the right annotation(s). Expected positioning is not specified in the part of the spec that describes the ruby elements, nor in the Rendering section of the spec. However, one can reasonably expect that in simple cases annotations are positioned above bases, by default. That is what these tests set out to explore.
These tests are exploratory. Does the browser stack annotations above bases, by default, for interleaved ruby elements?
These tests are exploratory. Does the browser stack annotations above bases, by default, for tabular ruby elements?
These tests are exploratory. As for the previous section, the HTML spec doesn't actually indicate how ruby bases with multiple annotations should be positioned relative to each other. However, one can reasonably expect that annotations are vertically stacked above bases, by default. That is what these tests set out to explore. (CSS would need to be used to position multiple annotations one over and one below.)
These tests are exploratory. Do various combinations of markup with rtc elements, sometimes mixing mono- and group-ruby, in the tabular model produce reasonable results by default?
Notes
These tests are exploratory. Do nested ruby elements produce reasonable results by default?
Notes
If a blank rt element is used in interleaved markup, does the browser leave a gap above the relevant base?
If a blank rt element is used in tabular markup, does the browser leave a gap above the relevant base?