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

Re: Ruby: questions about fallback

From: Richard Ishida <ishida@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2013 17:19:28 +0000
Message-ID: <51377AA0.3060403@w3.org>
To: John Cowan <cowan@mercury.ccil.org>
CC: "Phillips, Addison" <addison@lab126.com>, "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>
But the question is, do they need to be rubified as compounds or as 
individual characters?  My guess is the latter.


On 06/03/2013 17:17, John Cowan wrote:
> Phillips, Addison scripsit:
>> 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.
> Indeed, the great bulk of all Chinese nouns are compound, if by that is
> meant "written with two or more hanzi".

Richard Ishida, W3C
Received on Wednesday, 6 March 2013 17:20:03 UTC

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