W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > September 2007

RE: Ruby in HTML

From: Richard Ishida <ishida@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 3 Sep 2007 16:53:37 +0100
To: "'Karl Dubost'" <karl@w3.org>
Cc: "'HTML WG'" <public-html@w3.org>, "'Richard Ishida'" <rishida@w3.org>, <michelsu@microsoft.com>, "'Chris Wilson'" <Chris.Wilson@microsoft.com>, <piro@p.club.ne.jp>
Message-ID: <001101c7ee42$978422e0$6501a8c0@rishida>

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Karl Dubost [mailto:karl@w3.org] 
> Sent: 03 September 2007 08:09
> I think it would help people in the WG, if you could do a 
> report on the precise state of art of Ruby Markup.
> People in the WG are interested by what is implemented *right 
> now* in browsers and authoring tools.
> For each feature, you could tell the WG
> What is working?
> What is buggy?
> What is not implemented at all?
> If you know of other types of implementations which benefit 
> from Ruby Markup, please tell us. It would be good to test 
> for each browsers you might know of.

I rewrote our existing ruby tests at [1] this morning, and wrote up the
results of applying the tests to various browsers [2] for a document served
as text/html. (I haven't checked the detail yet, but I think the results are
exactly the same for an XHTML 1.1 document (we have another set of tests for

Basically, IE supports simple ruby only, and Firefox with an addon supports
both simple and complex ruby.  That's it.

Note that some of the tests make assumptions that the expected rendering
will occur as described by default settings of the CSS3 Ruby Module, since
there is very little information in the Ruby Annotation spec about expected

> > In particular, we need to be clear whether needed 
> improvements relate 
> > to the ruby markup model described in the ruby annotation spec, or 
> > whether they are needed to specify expected behaviour in HTML 
> > specifically.
> This will be possible once we know how it is implemented.

I thought the improvements alluded to by people like Anne related to the
spec itself, rather than any particular implementations.


> > Btw, if we do make substantive changes to the way the ruby 
> spec works, 
> > I'd like to see three levels of conformance rather than just the 
> > current two.
> > Ie. Rather than simple ruby / complex ruby, I'd like to see simple 
> > ruby / multiple ruby / complex-table-like positioning for ruby.
> Could you explain what do you mean?

There are two levels fo conformance for the ruby annotation spec. Simple
ruby is defined in the spec as a single ruby base and single ruby text.
Complex ruby can mean either 2 ruby texts for one base text (one above and
one below horizontal text), or an inline table like arrangement of multiple
ruby bases and ruby texts, or a combination of both.

I think complex ruby is not easy to implement fully.  A lot of the usage I
see for ruby doesn't need the inline table stuff.  I can see a need however
for ruby above and below the base text (without the inline table cells).  I
think that may make another level of conformance.

Received on Monday, 3 September 2007 15:51:27 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:15:26 UTC