On Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 5:04 PM, Roland Steiner <[email protected]>wrote:
> However, if the consensus is that we should rather take those objects out > (Ian Hickson doesn't seem to be a fan of complex ruby, either), then of > course I can remove them from the code. The resulting object model would > probably look like: > > ruby : RenderInline or RenderBlock (inline-block) > ruby-run : RenderBlock (inline-block with inline children) - 1 or > more > ruby-base : RenderInline -> InlineFlowBox - 1 > ruby-text : RenderInline -> InlineFlowBox - 0 or 1 (could even > allow 2, for both 'before' and 'after' positions) > Seems like it wouldn't be hard to add the complexity in later (as a second pass) if we decide there's value there; in the meantime, writing the simplest possible implementation has testing and code readability benefits. I suggest sticking with the simple stuff that's sufficient to do HTML5 as a first pas. When everything is in, tested and working, you can evaluate if more complex support a la the current CSS3 spec is a good idea. If so it'd probably make sense to get HTMLx (whatever x is by then, perhaps 6) to agree so that other browsers are all on board too. PK
_______________________________________________ webkit-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev
