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

Re: Memo from ruby disucssion with Roland

From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2012 11:48:53 +0100
Message-ID: <4F40D395.9070406@inkedblade.net>
To: public-i18n-cjk@w3.org
On 02/18/2012 02:28 PM, Koji Ishii wrote:
> He didn't like rbspan because it makes box generation code complicated when elements are inserted/deleted dynamically.

Hi Koji,
I don't think there's a need for rbspan if you want to do this

  group-note
B1 B2 B3 B4
T1 T2 T3 T4

See http://fantasai.inkedblade.net/weblog/2011/ruby/ Level 3: Double Ruby -
the idea is that text contained directly within an <rtc> is interpreted
as spanning all bases.

There's only need for rbspan if you want to do this

span-1-3 T4
B1 B2 B3 B4
T1 span-2-4

I haven't seen any examples of this, have you? I don't imagine it would
be at all common...

> Roland brought up yet another idea, using "for" attribute, like<label for="id">. The implementation may be more complicated than the two, but this approach can avoid using rbspan, which he didn't like.  For example,<rt for="B1 B2">  can avoid rbspan and tighten the relationship between base and ruby than rbspan does, although we need to define behaviors more precisely (e.g., what happens when B4 is inserted between B1 and B2, etc.) I still haven't gave much thoughts on the idea yet, but it's probably worth to investigate further.

This is awkward to author, and makes possible some very strange markup
that makes no sense. Suppose someone puts in IDs for non-consecutive
bases. Or bases from the previous line. Or the ID attribute of a <div>.

(IMO, interfaces should be designed, insofar as practical, so that invalid
or nonsensical input is simply not possible. This fails that test...)

Thank you for the discussions and the summary!

~fantasai
Received on Sunday, 19 February 2012 10:49:24 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Sunday, 19 February 2012 10:49:25 GMT