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

Re: Ruby: Requirements and prioritization

From: Robin Berjon <robin@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 07 Mar 2013 16:24:03 +0100
Message-ID: <5138B113.7040401@w3.org>
To: "Ishii, Koji a | Koji | BLD" <koji.a.ishii@mail.rakuten.com>
CC: "Phillips, Addison" <addison@lab126.com>, 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>
Hi,

On 04/03/2013 16:24 , Ishii, Koji a | Koji | BLD wrote:
> Please count me as well for people who supports the requirement.
>
> BTW, knowing it’s even rarer, I can’t stop sharing yet another sample of
> double-ruby (not double-side ruby):
>
> https://dl.dropbox.com/u/8812114/scans/ishi/double-ruby.jpg
>
> This is a scan from a novel, where the hero writes a Kanbun
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kanbun>-style letter to his wife.

Note that the current extension specification for ruby actively 
precludes this by indicating that <ruby> inside <ruby> is meaningless. 
But if there is implementers' support for this (and if it's possible in 
the rendering model) then it is a very simple change to make to the 
proposed extension to make it happen. Basically it just requires 
*removing* text :)

-- 
Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/ - @robinberjon
Received on Thursday, 7 March 2013 15:24:17 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 7 March 2013 15:24:18 GMT