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

Re: Memo from ruby disucssion with Roland

From: Roland Steiner <rolandsteiner@google.com>
Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2012 16:31:44 +0900
Message-ID: <CACFPSpjUw9QWpfQO4Kopwn5p5O1K9tyg_dbbghsYBttxx93GVw@mail.gmail.com>
To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Cc: public-i18n-cjk@w3.org
On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 03:09, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>wrote:

> On 02/23/2012 03:29 AM, Roland Steiner wrote:
>
>>
>> But then, tables and definition lists also don't ask to be alternatively
>> rendered inline, with nice enclosing parentheses.
>>
>
> Rendering doesn't affect semantic associations in the markup, so I don't
> see how adding a for= attribute makes anything better.
>

Well, it would have trivial inlining behavior:

    <ruby>
        <rb id="T">東</rb><rb id="K">京</rb>
        <rp> ( </rp><rt for="T">とう</rt><rt for="K">きょう</rt><rp> ) </rp>
        <rp> ( </rp><rt for="T K">Tokyo</rt><rp> ) </rp>
    </ruby>

But again, I'm not really arguing for this particular proposal - this was
just meant to brainstorm alternatives.



> 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:
>>
>
> I don't see how you can solve that concern without switching to a
> column-major model.


That was exactly the point I was trying to make on this thread: to not
simply discard the column-major model out of hand and assume a row-major
model would be just all peaches and sunshine.


Cheers,

- Roland
Received on Friday, 24 February 2012 07:32:32 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 24 February 2012 07:32:35 GMT