W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-international@w3.org > July to September 2002

Re: including ruby in an xhtml 1 transitional doc

From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2002 19:57:09 +0200
Message-ID: <7015295421.20020703195709@w3.org>
To: www-international@w3.org, Tex Texin <tex@i18nguy.com>

On Wednesday, July 3, 2002, 7:40:27 PM, Tex wrote:


TT> Chris,
TT> thanks for the reply.
TT> Sure, shoot me the file.

Okay.

TT>  A couple comments below-
TT> tex

TT> Chris Lilley wrote:
>> 
>> On Wednesday, July 3, 2002, 9:24:37 AM, Tex wrote:
>> 
>> TT> What is the proper way to add ruby to a 1.0 transitional doc,
>> 
>> aha, you refer to 'transitional' vs 'strict'. Yes, transitional is
>> being phased out. There is little presentational gloss remaining in
>> transitional that you can't do (better) with CSS.

TT> ok. Maybe I missed it, but a clear indication not to pursue the approach
TT> would save time.

Not to try to ad parts of 1.1 to 1.0 yourself? Oh, i thought you had
already decided that.

TT> Also, based  on my (limited) experience with browsers, not all CSS
TT> features are supported or supported the same way, which is why I wanted
TT> to maintain some of the older usages.

Not really a consideration in a page that tests support for rendering
ruby markup, I would suggest. Also, while it is true that support for
the entirety of CSS2 is as yet lacking, the very basic styling here
(background and text colors, light font changes and centering) is not
exactly rocket science and if a browser does not support even those
baby steps, the chances of it adding Ruby support this century are
minimal at best.

>> 
>> TT>  or
>> TT> alternatively to
>> TT> have a 1.1. doc that accepts the older html markup?
>> 
>> TT> The page in question is:
>> TT> http://www.i18nguy.com/unicode/unicode-example-ruby.html
>> 
>> That file is not even well formed. So since its not XML, its not XHTML
>> 1.0.

TT> Prior to adding Ruby, it had passed the W3 validator.

The validator does a WF check before checking validity in the case of
XHTML.

TT> (Unless I messed it up adding Ruby...)

entirely possible

or added things *after* ruby - there were a couple of missing quotes -
did you add an extra language after adding ruby, for example?

 
>> Six edits (missing spaces between attributes, missing quotes around
>> attribute values) made it well formed.
>> 
>> It was then invalid, because of the ruby, as you note.
>> 
>> Altering the doctype to XHTML 1.1 strict showed a couple of errors -
>> use of the lang attribute (easily fixed by deletion, xml:lang was
>> already there, or by search and replace to xml:lang if not).
>> 
>> Then there was the ultra-simple presentational stuff
>> 
>> <body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFED" link="#0000EE"
>> vlink="#551A8B" alink="#FF0000">
>> 
>> totally simple to replace in less than a minute. You already had a
>> link to a stylesheet anyway. And some gratuitous use of center tags,
>> again not needed because class="ctr" looks like there is styling
>> applied ... and some bare text not inside paragraphs a couple of
>> places ... and use of the name attribute instead of the id attribute
>> for link destinations.

TT> The gratuitous centers were there because some browsers did not center
TT> the items otherwise.

Oh, well *that* browser can be dealt with by explicitly adding
selectors for tables, table cells, and paragraphs inside table cells.
Yes, a rule applied to paragraphs should apply to all paragraphs -
butthat version 4.x gets it hopelessly wrong. Not so much of a problem
now that version 6 is around and version 7 is in prerelease.

>> Thats it. 7 minutes elapsed time (including blow by blow commentary
>> email), valid XHTML 1.1 strict document. XML Spy is wonderful ;-)
>> 
>> Should I mail it to you?

TT> Yes please. I'll try it out with a few browsers.

(Mailed directly to Tex)

-- 
 Chris                            mailto:chris@w3.org
Received on Wednesday, 3 July 2002 13:58:14 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 19:16:59 GMT