W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-i18n-cjk@w3.org > October to December 2011

[Bug 10830] i18n comment : Please add support for rb

From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
Date: Sat, 08 Oct 2011 01:23:11 +0000
To: public-i18n-cjk@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1RCLd9-0005e2-WB@jessica.w3.org>
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=10830

--- Comment #56 from Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no> 2011-10-08 01:23:08 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #53)
> (In reply to comment #51)

It i always possible with an amicable solution. Hence I offer a (belated)
reply:
> > (5) http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/振假名 This page user ruby and it

> Actually that page could be simplified even further by removing both the <b>
> and the <rb> and just styling "ruby > span { ... }".

How come you see a usecase for 
    <ruby><span>foo</span><rt>bar</rt></ruby>
but not for
    <ruby><rb>foo</rb><rt>bar</rt></ruby>
? 

That <rb> has a dedicated purpose, is an advantage, e.g. it helps avoiding
indirection problems.


> (In reply to comment #52)

> > fallback styles for UAs that don't support ruby but support CSS tables:
> > 
> > ruby rb  { display:table-row-group; display:ruby-base; }
> 
> This could be done using <span> as well, if it was necessary at all (which is  unclear to me).

Would a need for *some* elment - such as <span> - convince you about <rb> at
all? Or would it simply lead you to say "use <span>"?


> > The other sets color, font-size and font-weight
> > 
> > #content_right .content_box h4 rb {
> >     color:#FFCC00;
> >     font-size:18px;
> >     font-weight:bold; }
> > 
> > ...but those are redundant since the h4 has the same color, font-size and
> > font-weight.
> 
> Indeed.

One could style the ruby text different from the <h4> element. In fact, here is
a page which colors some rubified words in red:
http://www.biblejapanese.com/july2504.html

> There is not a compelling argument here that there are good use cases for
> adding this feature.

The most obvious use case is when you want to style the base character without
affecting the rest of the <ruby>:

* Unless you have <rb> (or another element in its place), there is no
workaround:
  ruby:first-line does not work unless you first give the ruby element
display:inline-block, which would only lead to a lot of problems (do I need to
list them?).  Usiung ruby:first-letter{} has exactly the same problem. 

* A situation where my guess is that many would wants to style the base
text-decoration different from the rest, is when the <ruby> is wrapped inside a
link, such as here  <http://www.biblejapanese.com/jbibles.html>. It is neither
clear or pretty when both the base character and the "above" character both
have text-decoration:underline. In fact, to me, as that page looks in Webkit,
you easily start to think that there are two links. 

* According to my tests, it is impossible to get browsers to underline only the
ruby base character unless there is <rb> or an equivalent element. One must
first disable underlineing for the anchor element itself, and then apply a
underline only for the <rb> element (or its equivalent element). 

PS: According to http://validator.nu, it is permitted to place an <a> inside
the <ruby> element itself - I don't know if that is a bug in the validator, in
the spec or in my own understanding of how it ought to be ... But at any rate,
I belive that the typical thing to do would be wrap the <ruby> element inside
the link, to ensure that the entire line-height as well as the "above"
characters are clickable.

-- 
Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You reported the bug.
Received on Saturday, 8 October 2011 01:23:19 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:10:23 UTC