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

Re: Fwd: Re: HTML Ruby Extension

From: Robin Berjon <robin@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2013 14:32:52 +0100
Message-ID: <51237F04.7050407@w3.org>
To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
CC: public-i18n-cjk@w3.org
On 14/02/2013 02:02 , fantasai wrote:
> On 02/13/2013 05:31 AM, Richard Ishida wrote:
>> So presumably if you don't want that for a particular sequence of
>> characters you would have to revert to the rb.rt.rb.rt approach,
>> ie. the author would have to carefully distinguish between two
>> different ways of marking up in order to get the right styling.
>
> No, this isn't the intent. The intent is to get the inlining
> behavior correct for such words and also provide the grouping
> information necessary for jukugo styling. And then have a style-level
> switch for jukugo styling of the ruby. Whether the default is jukugo
> or mono ruby is a separate question... and I think there are good
> reasons to make mono ruby the default, one of them being
> implementation difficulty.

Indeed, that is not at all the intent. And Richard also said:

> Essentially, I think that what you are implying here is that use of
> the rb.rb.rt.rt approach automatically forces the browser to treat
> the ruby as juguko-styled.

Again, I wanted to stress that that isn't the case at all. There is no 
forcing of the browser to go jukugo. What there is is an implied 
grouping of the bases and their ruby so that it becomes easy to turn on 
jukugo with just the flick of a CSS switch. Note also that it makes 
rb.rb.rp.rt.rt.rp possible.

-- 
Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/ - @robinberjon
Received on Tuesday, 19 February 2013 13:33:01 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 19 February 2013 13:33:02 GMT