W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-i18n-cjk@w3.org > October to December 2010

RE: <rp> fallback in complex ruby.

From: Koji Ishii <kojiishi@gluesoft.co.jp>
Date: Sat, 18 Dec 2010 02:37:14 -0500
To: 塩澤 元 (Shiozawa, Hajime) <hajime.shiozawa@gmail.com>
CC: "public-i18n-cjk@w3.org" <public-i18n-cjk@w3.org>
Message-ID: <A592E245B36A8949BDB0A302B375FB4E0AA8B1BE8C@MAILR001.mail.lan>
Not at all, and thank you for your response.

I don't think my opinion matters here. W3C has presented two options, one with more features, the other with less costs. It's then browser developers and page authors to decide which is better. I wish browser developers implement both, so that page authors can make the choice, but it's up to them to decide.

You're a developer, so nothing prevents from you to implement, and I actually encourage you to do so as written above. We can then see which authors really choose.

I do care, however, if what users demand are not provided. If I understand correctly, currently, simple ruby does not provide enough styling features because of its simplicity as you pointed out. But styling is what CSS is responsible for. So I would like to leave "which is better" question because it's not me who make the final judge anyway, but focus on how to provide whatever authors think necessary to both options.

> I disagree that the old fallback is less important today.
> The new fallback is good but I think that
> the old fallback should not be forgotten.

You're right. Allow me to change the way I say this.

We have two kinds of "fallback" we used to say. One is really a fallback, the other is a new way of displaying ruby; I would call this "inline" by borrowing terminology from CSS3 Ruby[1].

"Fallback" occurs where browser knows nothing about ruby, and its goal is at least it is readable.

"Inline", on the other hand, is a display type where some authors or readers may prefer than normal ruby display, and its goal is more professional.

For the "fallback", as you said, complex ruby provides better result, but I think simple ruby also fulfills its goal.

For the "inline", we can define its behavior now in the CSS3 Ruby spec. When the spec is complete, browser vendors may not agree and implement this, I don't know at this point, but it's worth a try. It was actually part of in my long term plan, and I'm happy to know that you care the fallback/inline.

[1] http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css3-ruby/#rubypos


Received on Saturday, 18 December 2010 07:40:33 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:10:22 UTC