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

RE: Planning to update the IncludeRB change proposal [Was: Letter-by-letter (or syllable-by-syllable) (was RE: HTML5 and ruby]

From: Koji Ishii <kojiishi@gluesoft.co.jp>
Date: Sun, 22 Jan 2012 23:16:37 -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: <A592E245B36A8949BDB0A302B375FB4E0D3297CB49@MAILR001.mail.lan>
Thank you for writing this up, Leif.

While I agree that rb/rb/rt/rt pattern is good, I don't know prohibiting rb/rt/rb/rt is a good idea. What are the motivation and benefits to prohibit that?

I think it purely depends on how author wants to break words/letters in his mind, and therefore the less constrains, the better, unless there're good reasons.


Regards,
Koji

-----Original Message-----
From: Leif Halvard Silli [mailto:xn--mlform-iua@målform.no] 
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2012 12:09 PM
To: Koji Ishii
Cc: Richard Ishida; CJK discussion
Subject: Planning to update the IncludeRB change proposal [Was: Letter-by-letter (or syllable-by-syllable) (was RE: HTML5 and ruby]

I have updated my IncludeRB Change Proposal [1]. Until now, it mostly focused on word-by-word related issues that support the inclusion of <rb> in HTML5. Namely: compatibility with existing code and tools, ability to identify the ruby base [or base 'word'] via CSS 2.1, problems related to use of ad-hoc wrappers such as <span> and metadata issues related to accessibility, language tagging etc. 

However, now I have updated the IncludeRB CP to also solve the letter-by-letter related details:

[A] Letter-by-letter conformance: The IncludeRB proposal now says that there can only be a single adjacent par of <rb><rt> inside a <ruby>. 
Thus

NOTE: An alternative solution could be to simply say that <ruby> should not not be used for letter-by-letter ruby unless one also uses <rbc>. 

    Comments on this detail?

[B] Complex ruby: <rbc> and <rtc> should be permitted. However Due to the parser differences [2], my CP reinstates only <rbc>. As a matter of fact, in Internet Explorer, then <rbc> creates zero problems - the ruby looks fine, even if you wrap the ruby base inside <rb>. And in Webkit, then the change of content model - [A] - creates a need for <rbc>, as it tends to fall apart otherwise. The introduction of <rbc> does not allow us to create double sided ruby - but at least it allows us to create ruby where the letter-by-letter should be possible to avoid.
    Example of what the suggestion implies:
<ruby>
   <rbc>
      <rb>W</rb><rb>W</rb><rb>W</rb>
   </rbc>
      <rp>[</rp><rt>World</rt><rt>Wide</rt><rt>Web</rt><rp>]</rp
</ruby>
    Question: Should <rbc> be obligatory? Or should it be allowed to ommit it? Omitting it works in IE. In my CP, I made it optional.

    Comments?

[C] <rtc> can be introduced in HTML6, and for that reason, my CP says that the HTML5 *parser* should be updated to not auto-close the <rtc> elemetn when the parser sees <rt> or <rp>.

Feedback of any kind is welcome. If you think you can write a better and/or more realistic CP and don't want to cooperate with me in making this one better, then please feel free to 'steal' - but it would be nice if you tell in your CP that you borrowed some ideas.

[1] http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/IncludeRB	
[2]
http://www.w3.org/mid/20120122134024833859.3dc4f444@xn--mlform-iua.no
--
leif h silli 
Received on Monday, 23 January 2012 04:19:43 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 23 January 2012 04:19:44 GMT