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

Better ruby rendering (was RE: Examples of double-sided ruby (was RE: Feedback for rb from html5j.org (was RE: HTML5 and ruby

From: Koji Ishii <kojiishi@gluesoft.co.jp>
Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2012 09:43:23 -0500
To: "public-i18n-cjk@w3.org" <public-i18n-cjk@w3.org>
Message-ID: <A592E245B36A8949BDB0A302B375FB4E0D3297CD37@MAILR001.mail.lan>
# Changed subject as it looks like this is a separate topic.

I actually like your idea very much. I hope us to keep discussing better presentation than what were done on paper, and I expect someday in future someone will come up with really good one.

Double-sided ruby is just one presentational method of "multiple annotations to the same base text." As long as its semantics were properly marked up, authors could use their creativities to come up with different presentational methods in future.

That's what we're trying to do here. I agree that double-sided ruby might not be the best presentation on the web. But we need to be able to markup its semantics in HTML5, and allow authors to select each part separately using CSS and DOM so that they could try creative presentations.

I don't like hacks like nested ruby, because it may prevent such future inventions.

So, while I completely agree with you, I believe discussing good markup for multiple annotations to single base text is important. I hope this is agreeable for you.


Regards,
Koji

-----Original Message-----
From: Taro Yamamoto [mailto:tyamamot@adobe.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2012 6:57 PM
To: public-i18n-cjk@w3.org
Subject: Re: Examples of double-sided ruby (was RE: Feedback for rb from html5j.org (was RE: HTML5 and ruby

I have a question about the idea of supporting and reproducing the double-sided style of ruby.

It is clear that ruby is a widely accepted, typographic method of annotation to Japanese printed text. On the other hand, it is also known that ruby introduces much complexity and additional constraints to the decision making processes in typesetting: line-breaking, letter-spacing, and justification, etc.

Ruby can add more and more constraints to the text composition, as the number of ruby instances in a paragraph grows, and it tends to result in spacing effects that are worse than those made without applying any ruby. This applies to common single-sided ruby. So, can't we predict, yet roughly, that the amount of the complexity that could be increased by the introduction of double-sided ruby will become tremendous?

I don't mean that ruby is a bad thing. I think ruby is a great invention in the age of printed books. Also, I know that skilled typographers can compose text with many ruby instances nicely, minimizing the possible negative spacing effects.

However, in the world wide web and digital publishing today, there should be better methods for annotating text than traditional ruby that used to work well for printed books.

This is just my guess, but adding double-sided ruby instances into ordinary text can introduce too much complexity and too many constraints to be solved by the composing software, and even at the cost, they will still have to show mediocre spacing results at best. So, I'm wondering who will pay the cost?

I know that double-sided ruby is more widely used in the field of textbook and study aid book publishing than in other areas of publishing in Japan. But if so, we should use a better method to annotate text (than traditional ruby), with which the readers (students or pupils?) can understand the text more easily and intuitively, without damaging the spacing and readability of the entire text. Shouldn't we utilize a more sophisticated method designed with our latest knowledge in the field of human computer interaction?

Just my thoughts.

Taro Yamamoto
Adobe Systems
Received on Wednesday, 25 January 2012 14:46:39 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 25 January 2012 14:46:40 GMT