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

RE: Memo from ruby disucssion with Roland

From: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2012 23:24:36 +0100
To: Koji Ishii <kojiishi@gluesoft.co.jp>
Cc: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, "public-i18n-cjk@w3.org" <public-i18n-cjk@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20120222232436932016.d0744d5b@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Koji Ishii, Wed, 22 Feb 2012 11:01:19 -0500:
>> * 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.

So you do not only say 'if we need' ... You also say 'because we need' 
inline style, row-major is the way to go, and therefore we need rb. 
Perhaps we could see if we agree about that?

1. Are there anyone - apart from Ian - with a stake in this, that argue 
that it should be column-major?

2. Do we agree that column-major - what is in HTML5 now - should be 
non-conforming?
-- 
Leif Halvard Silli
Received on Wednesday, 22 February 2012 22:25:09 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 22 February 2012 22:25:10 GMT