Re: Memo from ruby disucssion with Roland

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,

<ruby>A<rt>a</ruby><ruby>B<rt>c</ruby><ruby>C<rt>c</ruby>

is semantically equal to this:

<ruby>A<rt>a</rt>B<rt>b</rt>C<rt>c</rt></ruby>

[1] 
http://www.w3.org/mid/20120223045155593755.51bc32bd@xn--mlform-iua.no


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]
>> 
http://www.w3.org/mid/A592E245B36A8949BDB0A302B375FB4E0D334EFCD6@MAILR001.mail.lan

>> --
>> Leif Halvard Silli
>

Received on Thursday, 23 February 2012 04:02:58 UTC