Hey Kent, To Fantasai's point, can you point to the specific WPT test cases for this intent? Are Chrome or Firefox failing any, and if so can you explain why?
Tentative LGTM2 assuming WPT coverage shows we're matching Firefox behavior. Also happy to discuss the nuance here first if it's not completely the case that we match Firefox. Rick On Mon, Oct 30, 2023 at 3:12 PM fantasai <[email protected]> wrote: > On 10/19/23 22:39, TAMURA, Kent wrote: > > fantasai wrote: > > > It seems you're listing a subset of values, which makes me wonder what > > > differences you would be introducing between Blink's behavior and the > > > behavior described in the specs (if any)? > > > > I think the new behavior will be a subset of CSS ruby. Blink will be > > compatible with CSS ruby box generation, but web authors won't have a > way to > > specify ruby-base-container and ruby-text-container to elements. > > OK, that seems reasonable. So therefore if the author writes in their > stylesheet: > > ruby { display: ruby; } > rt { display: ruby-text; } > rb { display: ruby-base; } > > They will get the exact same rendering as in Firefox for all markup > permutations of <ruby>, <rb>, and <rt>, correct? > > If that's true, then I agree with setting those values on <ruby>, <rt>, > and > <rb> and shipping such an implementation. > > > > WebKit's position is also against the whole spec... > > > > I don't think WebKit is against the specification though their ruby > > development is not active. > > Sorry, I wrote that confusingly. WebKit's position is *regarding* the > whole > spec. :) They are obviously in support. > > > > I think it would be important to understand how Blink's proposed > > > implementation might differ from the spec and from Firefox's > implementation, > > > particularly in terms of the box model and layout structures it > generates for > > > various ruby markup patterns. > > > > > > Also, CSS Ruby Layout is quite complicated, do you have a prototype > already? I > > > didn't see an Intent to Prototype come through earlier. I think it > would be a > > > good idea to evaluate the quality of the implementation and any > differences > > > with Firefox before approving an intent to ship. At least, if I were in > > > charge, I would want to... > > > > We don't have an implementation of this change yet. > > I think it would be good to evaluate the change before deciding whether > it's > ready to ship. If you don't have an implementation, you can't evaluate > which > bugs need to be fixed before you ship vs which you are willing to fix > afterwards. > > ~fantasai > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "blink-dev" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/973e0592-b537-4c14-b3b0-87953bad890c%40inkedblade.net > . > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "blink-dev" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/CAFUtAY_xCX0L%2Bf0HDj2Uy%2B%2BkXNMRKmRbuaaFvuUHZGXdk7mymg%40mail.gmail.com.
