W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-i18n-core@w3.org > July to September 2011

[Bug 10830] i18n comment : Please add support for rb

From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2011 22:41:06 +0000
To: public-i18n-core@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1R8JrG-0006eg-Kd@jessica.w3.org>
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=10830

--- Comment #53 from Ian 'Hixie' Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> 2011-09-26 22:41:02 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #51)
> 
> I think you should 'cut some slack' due to the bad support for <ruby> -
> especially for <rb>.

Asking for just one or two good use cases _is_ cutting some slack. A whole heck
of a lot of it. The lack of <rb> isn't actually a limitation for any of the
styling suggested here, since an author could just use <span> instead and get
the exact same effect.

If there really is a use case here, it would be more than apparent.


> (1)  ruby:hover rt{hightlight}, see:
>      http://sites.google.com/site/funnyepiphany/customize/stylesheet
>      This is (merely) evidence that authors want to use interactivity with
> ruby. To place the hover on rb:hover{} instead of on ruby:hover{} only has the
> effect that it is more precise in what it hightlight.

This seems unaffected by the presence of absence of <rb>.


> (2) Though they (due to the historically bad browser support) use the table
> element instead of <ruby>, the furiganizer.com hightlights the rubyfied text on
> hover: http://www.furiganizer.com/

This page doesn't need <rb> as far as I can tell.


> (3) Furigana injector: http://code.google.com/p/furigana-injector/ 
>      This is a browser extension that works with Chrome and and other browsers
> and which fetches ruby terms from a server and inserts them as ruby annotation
> via javascript. It uses <rb>. I don't know whether <rb> is important - please
> analyse.

I can't find any reason why this would need <rb>, but in any case, it's an
extension and therefore need not be limited by HTML.


> (4) The yomoyomo.jp site adds ruby on the fly too via javascript, using<rb>:
>      Example: http://yomoyomo.jp/content.php?yyparam=00500101&t=

This page doesn't seem to benefit from the <rb>. If anything, it makes it more
complex.


> (5) http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/振假名 This page user ruby and it
> hightlights the base words with bold style. Unfortuneatly the page uses <b>
> instead of CSS. Nevertheless, had the author chosen to apply
> ruby{font-weight:bold} then he would also have had to apply
> rt{font-weight:normal}, to undoo the styling for the <rt> element. Thus, the
> keeing the <rb> allows for simpler CSS.

Actually that page could be simplified even further by removing both the <b>
and the <rb> and just styling "ruby > span { ... }".


(In reply to comment #52)
> http://www.google.com/codesearch#search/&q=%5Csrb%5Cs%5B%5E%7B%5D*%7B%20lang:css&type=cs
> 
> One sets fallback styles for UAs that don't support ruby but support CSS
> tables:
> 
> ruby rb  { display:table-row-group; display:ruby-base; }

This could be done using <span> as well, if it was necessary at all (which is
unclear to me).


> The other sets color, font-size and font-weight
> 
> #content_right .content_box h4 rb {
>     color:#FFCC00;
>     font-size:18px;
>     font-weight:bold;
> }
> 
> ...but those are redundant since the h4 has the same color, font-size and
> font-weight.

Indeed.


There is not a compelling argument here that there are good use cases for
adding this feature.

-- 
Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Received on Monday, 26 September 2011 22:41:12 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 26 September 2011 22:41:22 GMT