- From: Richard Ishida <ishida@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2013 17:19:28 +0000
- 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. RI 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 http://rishida.net/
Received on Wednesday, 6 March 2013 17:20:03 UTC