Relationship with /TR/ruby

[frivoal]

@plehegar said in #758

2 considerations:

1. Shouldn't the SOTD indicate that this specification is meant to deprecate the Ruby Annotations specification?
2. You should consider what will happen to the /TR/ruby shortname when this specification moves forward, ie you may want to point it to html-ruby-extensions or something.

These are good questions. My take would be:

1. yes
2. once this spec is sufficiently mature, /TR/ruby should be formally superseded if favor of this document.

If the WG agrees, I'll updated the SOTD accordingly.

[xfq]

I do not agree to formally supersede the old ruby document unless we address the following issues in the new document:

• The <rbc> Element
• The rbspan Attribute
• The separation of "simple" vs. "complex" markup
• XHTML & DTDs

/cc @r12a