W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-i18n-cjk@w3.org > January to March 2012

Re: HTML5 and ruby

From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 08:30:47 -0800
Message-ID: <4F16F3B7.3060805@inkedblade.net>
To: public-i18n-cjk@w3.org, 'WWW International' <www-international@w3.org>
On 01/12/2012 07:53 AM, Richard Ishida wrote:
> Ian Hickson, the HTML5 editor, is waiting for us to make some clear recommendations about whether rb is needed for simple ruby
> markup, and how to approach complex ruby support.
>
> Time is now pressing. We have until February 11th to submit a change proposal.
>
> In order to help focus the discussions on the bugzilla threads at
> https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=10830 (Please add support for rb)
> and
> https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=13113
> I produced a wiki page at
> http://www.w3.org/International/wiki/Rb
> that shows alternative approaches that meet various use cases, and offers pros and cons for each.
>
> Please give your opinions, with reasoned arguments, on which approaches work best. Please try not to focus on one small
> aspect, but consider things within the wider framework. Note that we are not focusing on the legacy usage of rb as much as on
> how to make the markup as simple and effective as possible going forward.
>
> Here are some key questions:
>
> 1. do we need rb for simple ruby, or will span suffice? (take into account the use case related to fallback)
>
> 2. do we need rb and rtc for complex ruby support, or is it sufficient to rely on a mixture of recursive ruby markup plus a
> second <rt> element (depending on the use case)?

I think the inclusion of <rb> allows solving all the use cases in
a consistent and extendable way, whereas the other options given
only solve some of the use cases in a haphazard way. For example,
you use <span> for styling bases, double <rt> if you have certain
kinds of double ruby, double <ruby> if you have other kinds of
double ruby, and the fallback and inlining use cases remain
unsolved. I don't see any reasonable objections to using <rb>, so
I don't understand why HTML needs to go to such great lengths to
avoid using it.

~fantasai
Received on Wednesday, 18 January 2012 16:31:40 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 18 January 2012 16:31:40 GMT