Not encouraging the use of double-sided ruby

[murata2makoto]

No browsers support double-sided ruby. Moreover, JLTF does not plan to cover the details of it in the upcoming JLReq-D.

How about dropping all subclasses about double-sided ruby? We might want to keep 2.6 without providing details of double-sided ruby.

[r12a]

The HTML WG is about to publish the spec that will eventually be integrated into HTML5. A result of that should be that browsers do implement support for double-sided ruby.

[frivoal]

No browsers support double-sided ruby.

Not true. Firefox does using <rtc>, and all browsers do using nested ruby. Nested ruby is less expressive than <rtc>, and has a number of issues, but regardless, double sided ruby is possible in all browsers, so looking into the limitations of current solutions seems relevant.

How much emphasis should be on it, how much priority it should be given is a different question.

[murata2makoto]

Not true. Firefox does using

Stand corrected.

No existing subclasses in this draft about double-sided ruby consider <rtc> or nested ruby. I am going to drop these subclasses now and think about reintroducing them when double-sided ruby is introduced to W3C and WHATWG HTML.