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

RE: Implying rb for accessibility (was RE: HTML5 and ruby

From: Koji Ishii <kojiishi@gluesoft.co.jp>
Date: Sun, 22 Jan 2012 01:29:34 -0500
To: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
CC: Richard Ishida <ishida@w3.org>, CJK discussion <public-i18n-cjk@w3.org>
Message-ID: <A592E245B36A8949BDB0A302B375FB4E0D3297CB36@MAILR001.mail.lan>
> Why? Instead of auto-generating <rb> in the DOM, why not make <rb> obligatory?

I'm personally fine with either, but I know some people wants to omit rb for simple case, so making it optional gets more people happy.


Regards,
Koji

-----Original Message-----
From: Leif Halvard Silli [mailto:xn--mlform-iua@målform.no] 
Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2012 7:08 AM
To: Koji Ishii
Cc: Richard Ishida; CJK discussion
Subject: Re: Implying rb for accessibility (was RE: HTML5 and ruby

Koji Ishii, Sat, 21 Jan 2012 15:17:24 -0500:
>> 1. do we need rb for simple ruby, or will span suffice? (take into 
>> account the use case related to fallback)
> 
> I went to a seminar about dyslexia in Japan today and wanted to share 
> what I heard there.
  [ … snip … ]
> The researcher tried several methods to improve their readability and 
> found that the best method was to replace Kanji with Hiragana.
> 
> To do that, we need this stylesheet in user stylesheet (or as a UA feature):
> 
> rb { display: none; }
> rt { display: inline; }
> 
> We could have all textbooks to have rb if it's allowed.

A good point. It is, in fact, a variant of what I told Martin: That <rb> allows us to hide the base for accessibility technology - such a screen readers.

> And the world
> becomes even friendlier to them if HTML5 implies rb tag when omitted.

Why? Instead of auto-generating <rb> in the DOM, why not make <rb> obligatory? 
--
Leif Halvard Silli
Received on Sunday, 22 January 2012 06:32:33 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Sunday, 22 January 2012 06:32:35 GMT