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

RE: Memo from ruby disucssion with Roland

From: Koji Ishii <kojiishi@gluesoft.co.jp>
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2012 11:01:19 -0500
To: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
CC: "public-i18n-cjk@w3.org" <public-i18n-cjk@w3.org>
Message-ID: <A592E245B36A8949BDB0A302B375FB4E0D334EFEE5@MAILR001.mail.lan>
> * Focusing on the need for <rb>: the most RUBY
> specific reason [as opposed to more general reasons]
> to include <rb>, seem to be what you, fantasai, at the
> bottom of your page - conclusion section - refer to as
> 'multi-pair word ruby': Without <rb>, one cannot have a
> mark-up based semantic relationship. Well, one could,
> but then would need to use e.g. a @for attribute.
>  [Did Ian dismiss this too - the multi-pair use case? 
> Or should we not think about Ian ...]

Ian suggested in his comment #17 of bug 13113[1] that rb is not necessary if we can go with column-major approach. That is why I asked Roland's help to discuss on advantages and disadvantages of row/column-major approaches.

My understanding now is in the bottom of the original e-mail; if we need inline style, row-major is the way to go, and therefore we need rb.

[1] https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=13113#c17


Regards,
Koji
Received on Wednesday, 22 February 2012 16:01:50 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 22 February 2012 16:01:51 GMT