- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2016 23:10:08 +0000
- To: www-international@w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=28265
--- Comment #26 from David Singer <singer@apple.com> ---
comment copied from GitHub:
After asking experts, I believe we have the following state:
<ruby> and <rt>:
are in the specification now
<rb>:
is in by implication (it's a normal part of <ruby> if I understand it
correctly), but we should be explicit
<rtc>:
might be needed for some cases; should we include it? I am not aware of
need, myself.
<rp>:
is only in HTML for backwards compatibility and is not needed.
Can we mention <rt> as being part of <ruby> and leave <rtc> for implementer
discretion and the future?
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Received on Wednesday, 16 November 2016 23:10:15 UTC