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

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

From: Taro Yamamoto <tyamamot@adobe.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2012 19:42:05 -0800
To: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
CC: "public-i18n-cjk@w3.org" <public-i18n-cjk@w3.org>
Message-ID: <BD6A1130020B4A4597CCDECFD2BCA31D53ABE8496C@nambx08.corp.adobe.com>
leif halvard silli wrote:

> However, ruby - element solution — have some well known advantages over
> abbr@title - attribute solutions.

I can understand styles of annotation including ruby have advantages, especially if the ruby structure allows various diverse methods or styles to represent it, not limited to the traditional printed form of ruby.

However, the word "ruby" is often discussed in association with the Japanese traditional typographic style. Because only Japanese typography has the historical link between (1) the "Ruby" type body that had been used by English and American printers before the American Point System was standardized in the late 19th century, and (2) the use of it for annotating Japanese text set in Small Pica whose size was two times larger than that of Ruby.

Also, the word "double-sided" implies the relationship with Japanese traditional ruby.

> you don't need ruby'. Isn't the problem just that Donald Knuth did not
> look at ruby? :-D I also suspect that ruby can be combined with 'our
> latest knowledge'.

Yes, it can be combined with 'our latest knowledge', when it is released from its historical, typographic "knowledge in the past" and its particular traditional representational style.

There seem to be various ways for annotating a word or sentence. Multiple annotations can be added to one single word or character string. I understand you are discussing its syntactic requirements. I don't intend to oppose doing it at all. But does it need to be "ruby"?

In case the proposed "double-sided" ruby being discussed here is linked to the Japanese historical, traditional, typographic style of ruby, I mentioned its disadvantages in my previous message. Implementing the traditional "double-sided" ruby will cost much, and it won't necessarily improve the quality of result typography, due to its complexity and overloading constraints.

If the discussion has nothing to do with the representational form of the historical, traditional ruby in Japanese typography, I can agree with part or whole of your discussions.

Thank you again for your comments.

Taro Yamamoto




Received on Thursday, 26 January 2012 03:42:28 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 January 2012 03:42:30 GMT