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 04:47:36 -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: <A592E245B36A8949BDB0A302B375FB4E0D3297CB3C@MAILR001.mail.lan>
> 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.

I agree. They can have separate priorities.


> [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.]

Yeah, I saw Ian said that before, but it didn't make sense to me. I understand eliminating unnecessary things makes better design, but making HTML simpler to add features to CSS doesn't pay anything.


-----Original Message-----
From: Leif Halvard Silli [mailto:xn--mlform-iua@målform.no] 
Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2012 4:29 PM
To: Koji Ishii
Cc: Richard Ishida; CJK discussion
Subject: RE: Implying rb for accessibility (was RE: HTML5 and ruby

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 09:50:48 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Sunday, 22 January 2012 09:50:48 GMT