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

Re: Ruby: Requirements and prioritization

From: MURATA Makoto <eb2m-mrt@asahi-net.or.jp>
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2013 16:01:24 +0900
Message-ID: <CALvn5ECT36-Ub6dbWL5P8y2OJqHbqOYJHj9G9FYtg-YXDd4q0g@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Ishii, Koji a | Koji | BLD" <koji.a.ishii@mail.rakuten.com>
Cc: MURATA Makoto <eb2m-mrt@asahi-net.or.jp>, Richard Ishida <ishida@w3.org>, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, "CJK discussion (public-i18n-cjk@w3.org)" <public-i18n-cjk@w3.org>, 董福興 <bobbytung@wanderer.tw>
That's why the title if this mail contains "prioritarization'.
Which feature is critical and urgent?  Standardization without
appropriate prioritization is unlikely to address market

I guess that bopomofo ruby is more urgent and more
important than anything else about ruby.


2013年2月27日水曜日 Ishii, Koji a | Koji | BLD koji.a.ishii@mail.rakuten.com:

> > > I am hearing from Google Japan that they are seeing requirements for
> > > double-sided ruby from their users.  I believe that Amazon are also
> > > interested in getting support.
> >
> > I am wondering if they have written down requirements.
> Let's stop discussing on whether double-sided ruby is required or not. The
> fact is that, it is required for some people. Not needed at all for others.
> So such two parties would never agree whether it's needed or not.
> The feature should be designed to make it optional for people who doesn't
> need it, and if you don't need it, the feature does nothing bad to you.
> /koji


Praying for the victims of the Japan Tohoku earthquake

Received on Wednesday, 27 February 2013 07:01:52 UTC

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