W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-i18n-its@w3.org > January to March 2006

Re: [dita-translation] More on ruby

From: Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2006 12:12:01 +0900
Message-ID: <4414E301.1050908@w3.org>
To: Andrzej Zydron <azydron@xml-intl.com>
Cc: gershon@tech-tav.com, bhertz@sdl.com, 'Bryan Schnabel' <bryan.s.schnabel@tek.com>, 'Charles Pau' <charles_pau@us.ibm.com>, "'Lieske, Christian'" <christian.lieske@sap.com>, 'Dave A Schell' <dschell@us.ibm.com>, dita-translation@lists.oasis-open.org, dpooley@sdl.com, 'Richard Ishida' <ishida@w3.org>, 'Jennifer Linton' <jennifer.linton@comtech-serv.com>, mambrose@sdl.com, patrickk@scriptware.nl, pcarey@lexmark.com, "'Reynolds, Peter'" <Peter.Reynolds@lionbridge.com>, rfletcher@sdl.com, "'Munshi, Sukumar'" <Sukumar.Munshi@lionbridge.com>, tony.jewtushenko@productinnovator.com, 'Yves Savourel' <ysavourel@translate.com>, public-i18n-its@w3.org

Hi Andrzej, all,

XHTML contains a module for ruby, based on the W3C ruby specification.
The open document format contains a definition for ruby markup which is 
compatible to what W3C ruby calls "simple ruby":


I am not sure what the XML format for MS word says about ruby. But since 
the Japanese version of MS word allows for using ruby, I am very 
confident that there is ruby markup in this vocabulary as well.

As Andrzej points out, having no ruby is not "a problem". However, if 
you would have ruby, its generation in these various output format would 
be straightforward.
I see your point that ruby is no pressing need. However, I don't see why 
it should hurt DITA.

Best regards, Felix.

Andrzej Zydron wrote:
> Hi Gershon,
> According to the W3C Localization tutorial 
> (http://www.w3.org/International/tutorials/ruby/)
> "Typically ruby is used in East Asian scripts to provide phonetic 
> transcriptions of obscure characters, or characters that the reader is 
> not expected to be familiar with. For example it is widely used in 
> education materials and children’s texts. It is also occasionally used 
> to convey information about the meaning of ideographic characters."
> Ruby is only relevant to DITA if it is felt that there is a 
> requirement for it in East Asian languages. Ruby is not compulsory for 
> publishing Japanese or other East Asian text, it merely allows the 
> author/translator to provide some indication regarding pronunciation 
> which would otherwise not be obvious (something we would do using a 
> phonetical rendition in parentheses) e.g. Zydroń (pron. Ziddrogne).
> I have personally been involved with publishing technical 
> documentation into Japanese for over 15 years and have yet to come 
> across a situation where the lack of Ruby support has been a problem.
> Therefore, IMHO, Ruby is not a pressing need regarding DITA 1.1. It is 
> worth considering it, with regard to providing enhanced support for 
> East Asian scripts in DITA 1.2.
> Best Regards,
> AZ
> Gershon L Joseph wrote:
>> Hi all,
>> Following up to our discussions at last Monday's Translation 
>> subcommittee
>> discussions about Ruby:
>> - Discuss a possible proposal for inclusion of the ruby
>>     attribute/element in the DITA specification
>>     - Don proposes not to include ruby for DITA in source, but to 
>>         discuss best practice to ensure annotation capability is 
>>     provided for in DITA and it could be interpreted into 
>>     ruby-like markup (i.e. keyref).
>>     - JoAnn - investigate a little further, but not applicable to 
>>         1,1, and we may have an alternative in the keyref. Add 
>>     recommendation for processors on how keyref may be 
>>     interpreted to ruby
>>     -- ACTION ITEM -- Gershon to research more and discuss with     
>> Richard for decision next meeting.
>> After a little more thinking, I feel we should accept JoAnn's move to 
>> remove
>> Ruby from DITA 1.1. After 1.1 (or maybe even after 1.2), we could
>> investigate whether the keyref attribute could be used to hold Ruby data
>> that would be output to the appropriate Ruby markup at publishing time.
>> Personally, I think we should wait for users to request Ruby support 
>> before
>> we consider any further work (documenting best practices, changing 
>> the spec,
>> or anything else) related to Ruby. I feel our efforts should rather 
>> be spent
>> on 1.1 items at this time.
>> Best Regards,
>> Gershon
>> ---
>> Gershon L Joseph
>> Member, OASIS DITA and DocBook Technical Committees
>> Director of Technology and Single Sourcing
>> Tech-Tav Documentation Ltd.
>> office: +972-8-974-1569
>> mobile: +972-57-314-1170
>> http://www.tech-tav.com
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
>> Text inserted by Panda Platinum 2005 Internet Security:
>>  This message has NOT been classified as spam. If it is unsolicited 
>> mail (spam), click on the following link to reclassify it: 
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Received on Monday, 13 March 2006 03:11:37 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:43:06 UTC