W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-i18n-cjk@w3.org > January to March 2013

Fwd: Re: HTML Ruby Extension

From: Richard Ishida <ishida@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2013 12:04:42 +0000
Message-ID: <511B815A.5020002@w3.org>
To: "CJK discussion (public-i18n-cjk@w3.org)" <public-i18n-cjk@w3.org>

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: HTML Ruby Extension
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2013 12:33:21 +0100
From: Robin Berjon <robin@w3.org>
To: Richard Ishida <ishida@w3.org>
CC: fantasai@inkedblade.net <fantasai@inkedblade.net>,  Felix Sasaki 

Hi Richard,

thanks for your feedback!

On 12/02/2013 19:17 , Richard Ishida wrote:
> [1] In your examples I think you need to use graphics to make clear what
> you are talking about. The i18n WG already raised a bug against the
> HTML5 spec to that effect.
> Eg. in Firefox i just see 君くん子しは和わして同どうぜず。  for the
> example under mono-ruby, which really isn't helpful to understand what's
> what - esp with the inline hiragana ;-) .

I've now added an image for that one. All of the other examples have
images, except inline ruby which can be described in text.

I stole most from fantasai and so hope that they're correct. The one I
made is the mono-ruby one you mention. Please triple-check this one as
from my point of view I'm basically copying pretty squiggles in what I
hope is the right place.

> [2] a more significant issue:
> I think the markup proposed for jukugo ruby is too complicated for the
> general case
> <ruby><rb>上<rb>手<rt>じよう<rt>ず</ruby>
> should just be
> <ruby>上<rt>じよう</rt>手<rt>ず</ruby>
> jukugo ruby is just mono-ruby - it's the styling that makes the
> difference, by allowing slightly more complicated overlapping than you
> would for mono-ruby.

I understand that, but I believe that the container information also
needs to be available if you're going to style as jukugo. Hence this
model. Otherwise how can you distinguish them for styling purposes?

> [3]  [RUBY-UC] is missing from the refs, so no-one can link to it

They're missing from the extension spec, but they're in the HTML spec so
we're covered once the two are merged (it's part of the problem with
this extension spec thing).

> [4] in the section Inline ruby you say
> This can be marked up as follows:
> <ruby>東<rb>京<rt>とう<rt>きょう</ruby>
> But if you mark it up like that you won't get what you want at all,
> surely. You'll get 東京とうきょう with no parens.

The idea was that you could support inlining with style. I've clarified
the prose around the example to underline that.

> [5] for double-sided ruby, it is sometimes the case that the rtc text
> relates to only, say, 2 out of the three characters with annotations
> above. Is that possible? (maybe i need to read a bit further to find the
> answer)

I'm not sure if I understand your question properly. Are you saying that
one of the rtc maps to three while the other maps to two?

I'm guessing that what you have in mind but aren't expressing is a
question about rbspan? The impression I got (from an admittedly small
sample) was that it wasn't something that was used overwhelmingly often.
The goal of the design is to enable adding support for it later without
however supporting it now.

> Also, is it possible to have the group ruby on the top and the non-group
> below?

If your top rtc only has one rt it'll span the full (implicit) base
container. The bottom rtc can have multiple rt that will map to bases in
the base container. Or am I missing your question?

> What about when you have text above spanning two base characters as
> group ruby then one mono ruby, while below you have either a single
> group-ruby for all three base characters or three individual ruby
> annotations, one for each base character?

I think fantasai covered that.

Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/ - @robinberjon
Received on Wednesday, 13 February 2013 12:05:27 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:10:24 UTC