Refine ruby-position and display-ruby key selection
#2927
Merged
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
github-actions
bot
added
the
feature definition
foolip
approved these changes
May 19, 2025
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Fixes #2634, mostly based on a subject matter expert's commentary given in #2634 (comment).
This PR makes two changes to the feature definitions for ruby annotations:
Moves
css.properties.ruby-position.alternatetodisplay-ruby, under the understanding that the behavior is only meaningful in the context of multi-level ruby, which is represented by thedisplay: ruby-text-containerdeclaration.This affects the reported version numbers for support, but since it's a limited-availability feature anyway I thought it was better to group the closely-related keys.
Explicitly pin
ruby-positionto theoverandundervalues.A note on something I did not do: Xidorn's suggestion notwithstanding, I did not make a standalone feature for
ruby-position: inter-character. If there's interest, I could do this, but I chose not to since I couldn't find a lot of evidence that developers are seeking this feature (e.g., no Stack Overflow questions; no further commentary on our own issue). I recognize, however, that my reading is very much biased toward English-language and Latin-characterset sources. I chose not to create a feature because while we always retain the option to mint a new feature later, it's currently harder to merge a feature if we decide that was a mistake.