W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-ig-jp@w3.org > March 2010

Ruby in HTML5

From: Richard Ishida <ishida@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2010 13:36:46 -0000
To: <www-international@w3.org>
Cc: <public-html-ig-jp@w3.org>
Message-ID: <002901cabec4$66647ed0$332d7c70$@org>
I would like the i18n WG to raise a bug report for HTML5 to ask that the specification be changed to support the markup in the Ruby Annotation specification. See 

http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/text-level-semantics.html#the-ruby-element

http://www.w3.org/TR/ruby/ 

One reason for this is to provide ongoing support for those people who have been using in XHTML so far.  Another is simply to allow for ongoing improvements in the way ruby can be handled in HTML - such as allowing people to use jukugo ruby or annotate base text on both sides.

Currently the HTML5 spec supports a version of ruby markup that is based on the support implemented in Internet Explorer.  This support was added just prior to the release of the Ruby Annotation Recommendation, and was never updated to conform to that spec.  The main difference is that it allows you to specify multiple instances of simple ruby within a single <ruby> element.  For examples, see http://www.w3.org/International/datespace/2010/02/jlreq-examples/

I think that we do not need to ask for the difference between HTML5's currently specified markup and that of the Ruby Annotation spec to be removed - just regard the HTML5 markup as providing a kind of extension to what is specified by the RA spec.  Afaict, there should be no problems with that.

I would also like to point out that the examples in the HTML5 spec are misleading, since the examples show whitespace between ruby base and <rt> elements that would produce inappropriate spacing when the page is displayed.

I would also like to point out that for Bopomofo ruby to be displayed as shown in the image (in columns along the right side of the ideographic characters), you would need additional information in the form of CSS.  I have heard it argued that a browser could figure out that it should do Bopomofo ruby like this by looking at the characters, but that would make it impossible to put Bopomofo before the base text if you wanted (which I have seen in practice).  I think it would be safer for now to just drop the reference to Bopomofo from the HTML5 specification - it will be addressed in the CSS3 Ruby module.

A small additional point: " In Japanese, this form of typography is also known as furigana. " => " In Japanese, furigana is a type of ruby. ", since 'furigana' only refers to the use of kana alongside the base text (as opposed, for example, to furikanji).

Does anyone have any questions/comments/objections before I do this ?

RI


============
Richard Ishida
Internationalization Lead
W3C (World Wide Web Consortium)

http://www.w3.org/International/
http://rishida.net/
Received on Monday, 8 March 2010 13:37:23 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 8 March 2010 13:37:23 GMT