- From: Richard Ishida <ishida@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2013 16:36:28 +0000
- To: Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>
- CC: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, 'WWW International' <www-international@w3.org>, CJK discussion <public-i18n-cjk@w3.org>, Ishii Koji <kojiishi@gluesoft.co.jp>
On 25/02/2013 15:31, Robin Berjon wrote: > On 22/02/2013 03:12 , fantasai wrote: >> On 02/15/2013 11:52 AM, Richard Ishida wrote: >>> http://rishida.net/misc/ruby/ruby-authoring.html ... >> >> These are very interesting examples! I have a couple questions on them. >> >> In the example with 振り仮名... >> >> - In the markup with an empty <rt>, it would render correctly, but >> the accessibility story would be broken because you would replace >> り with nothing if you were replacing the bases with their <rt>s. > > Would it break if the accessibility algorithm were: "replace the base > with the annotation UNLESS the annotation is empty"? It's not hard to > specify. Not sure whether you were asking me or Fantasai, but it sounds good to me. One thing I haven't yet asked, but keep meaning to, is whether we expect people to regularly sandwich hiragana/katakana in ruby elements for simplicity. Imagine, for example, a sentence composed of (K)anji and (h)iragana as follows, where the last three h's are the gramatical ending of a verb: KKKKhKKhKhhh would we require people to do <ruby>KKKK</ruby>h<ruby>KK</ruby>h<ruby>K</ruby>hhh or would it be ok to save a lot of typing and do <ruby>KKKKhKKhKhhh</ruby> which could be marked up as follows where B=ruby base, a=ruby text, h=hiragana and <space>=empty rt: <ruby>BBaaBBaah BBaah Kahhh </ruby> Its very tempting to do that, especially for a long text that needs rubification by hand. RI -- Richard Ishida W3C http://rishida.net/
Received on Monday, 25 February 2013 16:37:03 UTC