I feel a lot less embarrassed about not finding that bug number now that I know
how long this thread has been running. :)
Eric Shepherd
Developer Documentation Lead
Mozilla
http://www.bitstampede.com/
On Dec 30, 2014, at 12:25 PM, L. David Baron dba...@dbaron.org wrote:
From the message at
Is there a bug for the changes being discussed here, and is it marked with
dev-doc-needed? Sounds like there will be, at a minimum, a few tweaks to the
discussion about how this stuff works.
Thanks!
Eric Shepherd
Developer Documentation Lead
Mozilla
http://www.bitstampede.com/
On Dec 27,
On Tuesday 2014-12-30 12:14 -0500, Eric Shepherd wrote:
Is there a bug for the changes being discussed here, and is it marked with
dev-doc-needed? Sounds like there will be, at a minimum, a few tweaks to the
discussion about how this stuff works.
From the message at the start of the thread
Xidorn Quan quanxunz...@gmail.com, 2014-12-27 10:12 +1100:
On Sat, Dec 27, 2014 at 12:23 AM, Michael[tm] Smith m...@w3.org wrote:
...
Xidorn Quan quanxunz...@gmail.com, 2014-12-26 04:41 -0800:
...
The difference in expression ability becomes more important when there
are words mixed
On 2014/12/28 3:04, Michael[tm] Smith wrote:
Further, I don't know of any typical case where if a base character
is kana, why you'd ever want to display furigana/yomigana for it.
Ruby is not used only for furigana/yomigana. I know one example from a
very popular Japanese novel:
On Sun, Dec 28, 2014 at 5:04 AM, Michael[tm] Smith m...@w3.org wrote:
Xidorn Quan quanxunz...@gmail.com, 2014-12-27 10:12 +1100:
On Sat, Dec 27, 2014 at 12:23 AM, Michael[tm] Smith m...@w3.org wrote:
...
Xidorn Quan quanxunz...@gmail.com, 2014-12-26 04:41 -0800:
...
The difference
On Sunday 2014-12-28 03:04 +0900, Michael[tm] Smith wrote:
So as long as the spec is going to require UAs to resort to magic behavior,
I think the magic could instead just be autohide any ruby annotations for
kana characters. And then you could just have simpler markup like this:
On Tuesday, July 8, 2014 3:34:50 AM UTC+10, ian.h...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, July 1, 2014 12:58:45 PM UTC-7, Koji Ishii wrote:
Summary:
Two recent HTML changes improve ruby support:
1) Addition of the rb and rtc elements (but not rbc); and
2) Matching update to the tag
Hi Xidorn,
Xidorn Quan quanxunz...@gmail.com, 2014-12-26 04:41 -0800:
...
If you want the word 明朝体 to be marked in ruby in separate form, with
the WHATWG rules, you must write it as:
ruby明rtみん/rt朝rtちょう/rt体rtたい/rt/ruby
It is incompatible with the inline form, which means, if an author
On Sat, Dec 27, 2014 at 12:23 AM, Michael[tm] Smith m...@w3.org wrote:
Hi Xidorn,
Xidorn Quan quanxunz...@gmail.com, 2014-12-26 04:41 -0800:
...
If you want the word 明朝体 to be marked in ruby in separate form, with
the WHATWG rules, you must write it as:
On Tuesday, July 1, 2014 12:58:45 PM UTC-7, Koji Ishii wrote:
Summary:
Two recent HTML changes improve ruby support:
1) Addition of the rb and rtc elements (but not rbc); and
2) Matching update to the tag omission rules to make ruby authoring easier.
By implementing these changes,
On Tue, Jul 1, 2014 at 10:58 PM, Koji Ishii kojii...@gluesoft.co.jp wrote:
Platform coverage: all platforms (parsing only, layout will be in separate
intents)
The parsing change is the easy part. Is there a plan to get the layout
part implemented?
My general take on this issue is:
1) As far
On 02/07/14 17:05, Henri Sivonen wrote:
On Tue, Jul 1, 2014 at 10:58 PM, Koji Ishii kojii...@gluesoft.co.jp wrote:
Platform coverage: all platforms (parsing only, layout will be in separate
intents)
The parsing change is the easy part. Is there a plan to get the layout
part implemented?
My
On Wednesday 2014-07-02 10:05 +0300, Henri Sivonen wrote:
On Tue, Jul 1, 2014 at 10:58 PM, Koji Ishii kojii...@gluesoft.co.jp wrote:
Platform coverage: all platforms (parsing only, layout will be in separate
intents)
The parsing change is the easy part. Is there a plan to get the layout
14 matches
Mail list logo
