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

RE: Ruby: questions about fallback

From: Phillips, Addison <addison@lab126.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2013 15:48:44 +0000
To: Richard Ishida <ishida@w3.org>, "CJK discussion (public-i18n-cjk@w3.org)" <public-i18n-cjk@w3.org>, "KOBAYASHI Tatsuo(FAMILY Given)" <tlk@kobysh.com>, MURATA Makoto <eb2m-mrt@asahi-net.or.jp>
Message-ID: <7C0AF84C6D560544A17DDDEB68A9DFB5021301@ex10-mbx-31004.ant.amazon.com>
> 
> I have been working through the ruby use cases document again, and I have the
> following questions:
> 
> [1] compound nouns and bopomofo ruby
> 
> We have been assuming that in japanese a compound noun such as 法華経
> would look better if the fallback produced 法華経(ほけきょう), rather than
> 法(ほ)華(け)経(きょう).
> 
> I think that there are far fewer compound nouns in Chinese than in Japanese,
> but my question is whether, where compound nouns do appear, there is any
> requirement to group the ruby text after the ideographic characters in the
> same way.  My assumption is that this is not needed - ie. that  bopomofo ruby
> fallback will always be B(a)B(a)...
> 
> Is that correct?
> 
I can't speak to the expectation of Chinese users for ruby fallback, but from recent experience, I do know that compound nouns in Chinese are not uncommon, even if your surmise about them being less common than in Japanese is correct. Having ruby appear parenthetically between each subword might look odd, even though the ruby (when drawn as ruby) would be placed character-by-character.

Addison
Received on Wednesday, 6 March 2013 15:49:16 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 6 March 2013 15:49:17 GMT