Thank you all for the reviews. *Can we request a signal?* I've found the opened issue in bugzilla https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1611410. I updated Firefox's signal field to "positive, with bugzilla link" in the chromestatus.com entry.
*1) Has the W3C i18n WG reviewed this, and what do they think?* Yes, they reviewed this on https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/4492 discussion. They supported this addition to address specific cultural and accessibility requirements. But, after that, frivoal@ proposed "ruby-overhang:none is too aggressive" on https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/5912. 2) Can the browser just do a better job of applying the 'auto' value, so that authors don't have to manually fix errors with 'none'? While browsers strive to improve auto behavior, none is a specific requirement for educational and accessibility contexts. For example, in children's books or textbooks for low-vision readers, authors need to ensure none overhang to prevent any reading confusion, even if the UA thinks the overhang is safe. So, I updated the motivation field in chromestatus entry. 2026년 3월 17일 화요일 AM 10시 43분 12초 UTC+9에 [email protected]님이 작성: > On Mon, Mar 16, 2026 at 5:47 PM 'Jeffrey Yasskin' via blink-dev < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> 1) Has the W3C i18n WG reviewed this, and what do they think? >> > > It might also be worth asking about the state of review from the Japanese > Language Enablement <https://github.com/w3c/jlreq/> and Chinese Language > Enablement <https://w3c.github.io/clreq/home> task forces. > > -David > -- 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 visit https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/531bfd98-04a4-4ee1-8130-59bc7e806178n%40chromium.org.
