Re: Memo from ruby disucssion with Roland

On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 20:21, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>wrote:

> I agree it's very verbose, and I don't think it's really that necessary.
> The assertion that there's no semantic link from the base text is
> not true -- the association is implied by the structure of the markup.
> We do this for tables, for <dl> markup, etc. As long as it's unambigously
> defined what associates with what, there is no problem and it's perfectly
> semantic.
>

But then, tables and definition lists also don't ask to be alternatively
rendered inline, with nice enclosing parentheses.


(I don't think your markup is correct, either -- Tokyo's annotation
> is not group ruby; there should be two <rt>s, one for each base.)
>

It was supposed to be an example for the markup and the 'for' attribute,
not the content.


You've seen http://fantasai.inkedblade.**net/weblog/2011/ruby/<http://fantasai.inkedblade.net/weblog/2011/ruby/>
> right?


The problem with the proposal there, from an implementation point of view
is that it's hard to layout, esp. on line ends. For example, in a
straight-forward layout:

1.) <rb>base1</rb> and <rb>base2</rb> are rendered and still fit on a line.
2.) <rt>text1</rt> and <rt>text2</rt> are encountered and longer than the
bases - the associated pair <rb>base2</rb><rt>text2</rt> needs to go on the
next line
3.) <rtc> is encountered and the whole thing needs to be redone from
scratch as it turns out there cannot be a line break between base1 and base2

There is also the question that Koji pointed out what
<rtc>text-A<rt>text-B</rt></rtc> means.


- Roland