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

[Bug 13113] Parsing algorithm should not preclude Complex Ruby

From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2011 19:44:25 +0000
To: public-i18n-cjk@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1RDLlx-0001SQ-Ev@jessica.w3.org>
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=13113

Ian 'Hixie' Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|REOPENED                    |NEW
  Status Whiteboard|                            |needs data

--- Comment #16 from Ian 'Hixie' Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> 2011-10-10 19:44:22 UTC ---
The first one does not seem to require anything the spec doesn't already
provide.

The second is consistent with what I wrote in comment 1. I make no argument
that there are no use cases. My argument is that the use cases are obscure. The
second example here is not common text, it's a very specialised case where the
language itself is being taught.

There are lots of examples of how we don't currently support that kind of
thing. For example, we don't have markup for grammar annotation (no <verb>,
<subject>, <adverbial-clause> elements) which would be very useful for people
teaching French of English. We don't have anything for marking up family trees
or molecular structures, even though that means HTML is deficient for
supporting those use cases (I get at least one person who asks me whether we
can add markup for genealogy every few months, because right now they're stuck
with using bitmaps or abusing tables to convey their data, and that sucks). I
gave other examples in comment 1.

-- 
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.
Received on Monday, 10 October 2011 19:44:28 UTC

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