(Note that I asked for further feedback on this very issue and never received
it:
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=20114#c9
I also have already pointed out in detail why the proposed model for
double-sided ruby is more complicated than the one in the HTML spec now:
https://ww
The only use case the ruby-use-cases document lists as not handled by
HTML is the one specifically targeting browsers that don't implement
Ruby at all. Are we really going to add two whole elements and so
significantly complicate the processing algorithm just to easing the
short-term transition pai
The HTML spec's ruby model was designed with the i18n group at the W3C
(in person, even), and, to my knowledge, handles every single use case
ever brought up, with the simplest possible markup. It would be a huge
mistake to instead implement something over-engineered like the above
spec, IMHO.
--
(In reply to Scott Trenda from comment #374)
> I don't know what debates have taken place within the working group on
> this topic
All presentational features, such as , align="", etc, were dropped
in the new HTML standard, because they have been deprecated for over a
decade and there's really no
