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: Thu, 23 Feb 2012 05:02:26 +0100
To: Roland Steiner <rolandsteiner@google.com>
Cc: Koji Ishii <kojiishi@gluesoft.co.jp>, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, "public-i18n-cjk@w3.org" <public-i18n-cjk@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20120223050226867030.75726818@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Having outlined the differences between Webkit and IE [1], I cannot see 
that there is any win of having column-major conforming when we agree 
that the way forward is row-major. The only 'column-major subset' that 
should be conforming, is a ruby element with a single base plus a 
single text.

In fact, this,


is semantically equal to this:



Leif Halvard Silli

Roland Steiner, Thu, 23 Feb 2012 11:55:15 +0900:
> With "current standard" I referred to the HTML5 spec, which 
> essentially encodes IE's implementation, and which in turn is 
> followed by WebKit's implementation:
>     <ruby>base1<rt>text1</rt>base2<rt>text2</rt>base3<rt>text3</rt></ruby>
> i.e., column-major, without <rb>, <rbc>, <rtc>. (<rp> is supported, 
> but omitted for simplicity.)
> I fail to see how this can be construed as having "some support for 
> both models".
> - Roland
> On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 11:42, Leif Halvard Silli 
> <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no> wrote:
>> Roland Steiner, Thu, 23 Feb 2012 11:02:18 +0900:
>>> On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 07:24, Leif Halvard Silli wrote:
>>>> 1. Are there anyone - apart from Ian - with a stake in this, that argue
>>>> that it should be column-major?
>>> The current standard and implementations are column-major.
>> You mix it up, I think. If we take specs firsts, then according the
>> letter from Koji that started this thread,[1] then [ignoring <rtc> and
>> <rbc>] this is the XHTML Ruby module' model — 'row-major':
>>   <ruby><rb/><rb/><rb/>
>>         <rt/><rt/><rt/><ruby>
>> While this is the model that Ian placed in HTML5  — 'column-major':
>>   <ruby><rb/><rt/><rb/>
>>         <rt/><rb/><rt/></ruby>
>> If we look at implementations, as long as we with 'support' have visual
>> display in mind, then IE and Webkit appears to have some support for
>> both models. [But if we consider what they present to find-in-page,
>> screen readers or present as fallback with CSS disabled, then they only
>> support row-major.]
>> Koji's description of 'row-major': '"row-major" approach; split first
>> by rows and then by columns.'
>>>> 2. Do we agree that column-major - what is in HTML5 now - should be
>>>> non-conforming?
>>> I don't think that's an option as it would break existing pages. A
>>> solution should have graceful fallback to both the current standard
>>> as well as to no <ruby> support.
>> I believe, when you said 'column-major', your really meant 'row-major',
>> not? And if so, then we can conclude, that so far, everyone in this
>> group is in favor of row-major.
>> The question I am still uncertain of, though, is whether anyone thing
>> that HTML5's column-major needs to remain conforming. My opinion about
>> that is negative - it need not and should not.
>> [1]

>> --
>> Leif Halvard Silli
Received on Thursday, 23 February 2012 04:02:58 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:10:23 UTC