New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Remove support for ruby{Overflow,Overhang} (#494). #515
Conversation
Built version available at https://rawgit.com/w3c/ttml2/issue-0494-defer-ruby-overflow-build/index.html |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Looks like the issue is resolved by this pull request but I am not able to review the detail of the new special semantics section at this time. Would appreciate it if any other WG member is able to do so.
@@ -12067,6 +12061,26 @@ base delimiter text delimiter = | |||
<p>The inter-character positioning mode for ruby annotations, such as used with <emph>bopomofo</emph> characters, | |||
is not supported by this version of this specification due to lack of market requirements.</p> | |||
</note> | |||
<div4> | |||
<head>Special Semantics</head> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I'm not able to review the special semantics section in detail - would appreciate e.g. @cconcolato 's review of this please.
I do not understand why "10.2.36.1 Special Semantics" was introduced as a separate section: the semantics do not seem anymore special than other ruby semantics. |
@palemieux because we do not in general specify default presentation behavior that, strictly speaking, is not related to tts:ruby; here, we essentially define default behavior that would have been derived from the initial values we had assigned to tts:{rubyOverflow,rubyOverhang} |
@skynavga The reader has no idea that |
well, you can consider it special in the sense that this behavior was not described in [1] |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Looks good to me.
Closes #494.
Closes #493.
Closes #260.
Closes #259.
Closes #257.