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

RE: FW: ruby and rb tag

From: Koji Ishii <kojiishi@gluesoft.co.jp>
Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2012 10:47:27 -0500
To: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>, CJK discussion <public-i18n-cjk@w3.org>
Message-ID: <A592E245B36A8949BDB0A302B375FB4E0D3297CD4B@MAILR001.mail.lan>
I think he just tried to let us know possible technical problems in our current proposal. That's a precious feedback because we might face it as we talk to HTML WG and to other vendors.

I haven't come up with "then what we should do" yet, but I hope discussion here can discover a good method to resolve the original issue you listed without requiring too much relayout.


-----Original Message-----
From: Leif Halvard Silli [mailto:xn--mlform-iua@målform.no] 
Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2012 8:07 PM
To: Koji Ishii
Cc: CJK discussion
Subject: Re: FW: ruby and rb tag

Koji Ishii, Wed, 25 Jan 2012 00:06:49 -0500:
> Since Leif mentioned he'd like to hear what implementers would say, 
> and I agree with that, I contacted Roland at Google, who implemented 
> ruby on WebKit and got his response. I'm forwarding this with his 
> permission. I'll forward another one that followed this as well.

These answers are very, very interesting. 

But one question/answer I miss, is the question about rb/rt/rb/rt versus rb/rb/rt/rt, with a perspective on the existing and potential problems related to that, as we recently discussed. [Spell checking, auto-translation, screen readers, find-in-page, online search engines that need to identify words and sentences etc. ]

Leif H Silli
Received on Wednesday, 25 January 2012 15:50:32 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 25 January 2012 15:50:33 GMT