On Jun 3, 2009, at 5:12 PM, Peter Kasting wrote:
On Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 5:04 PM, Roland Steiner <rolandstei...@google.com
> 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.
I had the same reaction. Handling simple ruby seems like a good first
step, even if we decide later that we want to add complex support.
Cheers,
Maciej
_______________________________________________
webkit-dev mailing list
webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org
http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev
