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: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Date: Sun, 22 Jan 2012 08:28:44 +0100
To: Koji Ishii <kojiishi@gluesoft.co.jp>
Cc: Richard Ishida <ishida@w3.org>, CJK discussion <public-i18n-cjk@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20120122082844947704.bd977b86@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Koji Ishii, Sun, 22 Jan 2012 01:29:34 -0500:
>> 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.

If we don't make <rb> obligatory, then at the very least, the ruby 
examples in the spec should be updated to include the <rb> element. 
Because, we don't just want to hide this option ...

Per the HTML5 design principles, users' need should have a higher rank 
than authors' need. And so, if obligatory, more users could be 
satisfied. [E.g. it would allow assistive technology to hide it by 
default.] But if optional, then, - unless there would be important side 
effects, such as increased use of ruby - only authors would be happy.

Of course, auto-generating the <rb> in the DOM, could make both users 
and authors happy. The question is only whether browser vendors are 
willing to follow that direction.

Therefore, it seems to me that if the auto-generating option should be 
put before the Working Group, then it would be good to have at least 
two change proposals: One auto-generate proposal and one 'do not 
auto-generate' proposal. [Also, note as well, that per the HTML5 
editor, there is also the option of introducing a new CSS selector - 
but I would hold against such a solution that it isn't backward 
compatible.]
-- 
Leif Halvard Silli
Received on Sunday, 22 January 2012 07:29:27 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Sunday, 22 January 2012 07:29:29 GMT