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

RE: Ruby: Requirements and prioritization

From: Phillips, Addison <addison@lab126.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2013 10:19:52 -0800
To: MURATA Makoto <eb2m-mrt@asahi-net.or.jp>, "Ishii, Koji a | Koji | BLD" <koji.a.ishii@mail.rakuten.com>
CC: 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>
Message-ID: <131F80DEA635F044946897AFDA9AC34773AAF47315@EX-SEA31-D.ant.amazon.com>
Hello Murata-san,

I don’t see Bopomofo ruby as being in “competition” with efforts towards improving single- or double-sided ruby support for Japanese. Work on Japanese-related ruby styles does not exclude or say anything about the relative priority of Bopomofo ruby.

I think that Bopomofo ruby is important. As Richard noted before, we really need several things to make progress on Bopomofo ruby.

First, we lack complete and authoritative requirements in English for how Bopomofo ruby should work—what the character positioning is, how it works with vertical text, how the ruby text is associated with base characters, what exceptions or stylistic variations there may be, and so forth. I think Richard has documented some of this, but we don’t have the expertise in the group at the moment to know if what we have is accurate or complete.

The other thing, once we have requirements, would be to make browser vendors aware of the need. I think the working group has some ideas for how to raise awareness, once we are in a position to answer their questions about how it should work.

Perhaps the best next step would be for the user community to mobilize support for this work, maybe by inviting experts who understand Bopomofo ruby to produce a requirements document. The Internationalization WG would certainly welcome publishing these materials and could supply support in various forms for this work to progress.

Regards,

Addison

Addison Phillips
Globalization Architect (Lab126)
Chair (W3C I18N WG)

Internationalization is not a feature.
It is an architecture.




From: eb2mmrt@gmail.com [mailto:eb2mmrt@gmail.com] On Behalf Of MURATA Makoto
Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2013 11:01 PM
To: Ishii, Koji a | Koji | BLD
Cc: MURATA Makoto; Richard Ishida; fantasai; CJK discussion (public-i18n-cjk@w3.org); 董福興
Subject: Re: Ruby: Requirements and prioritization

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
needs.

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

Regards,
Makoto

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

Makoto
Received on Wednesday, 27 February 2013 18:21:22 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 27 February 2013 18:21:22 GMT