W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-international@w3.org > January to March 2010

Re: Ruby in HTML5

From: MURAKAMI Shinyu <murakami@antenna.co.jp>
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2010 12:06:39 +0900
To: Suzumizaki-Kimikata <szmml@h12u.com>
Cc: Jeroen Ruigrok van der Werven <asmodai@in-nomine.org>, Richard Ishida <ishida@w3.org>, www-international@w3.org, public-html-ig-jp@w3.org
Message-Id: <20100311120639.B277.C598BCD7@antenna.co.jp>
Suzumizaki-Kimikata <szmml@h12u.com> wrote on 2010/03/11 9:30:11
> I think nesting ruby-element causes logically unsuitable.
> 
> Ruby-text(<rt>) will always annotate ruby-base even the rt is
> second one, and never annotate the pair of ruby-base and the other
> ruby-text.
> 
> Correct:
> Ruby-base is annotated by ruby-text-1, and
> Ruby-base is annotated by ruby-text-2.
> 
> At least logically Wrong:
> Ruby-base is annotated by ruby-text-1, and
> the pair of ruby-base and ruby-text-1 is annotated by rt-2.

I think that is not always true. Sometimes ruby nesting is logical.
For example, when the ruby-base is kanji, ruby-text-1 is its reading 
(it's normal Japanese ruby usage), and ruby-text-2 is English word,
the pair of ruby-base and ruby-text-1, Japanese word, is annotated 
by ruby-text-2, English word. See the following markup:

  <ruby class="with-English-translation">
    <ruby>東<rt>とう</rt>南<rt>なん</rt></ruby>
    <rt>southeast</rt>
  </ruby>

Seems logical markup, no?

I admit the XHTML1.1 complex ruby may be more suitable for other cases,
for example Japanese reading and Chinese reading for Chinese person name,
in such case XHTML1.1 complex ruby will be better than ruby nesting.
But I'm not sure it is really important for HTML5 users.

-- 
村上 真雄 (MURAKAMI Shinyu)
http://twitter.com/MurakamiShinyu
Antenna House Formatter:
http://www.antenna.co.jp/AHF/
http://www.antennahouse.com
Received on Thursday, 11 March 2010 03:07:18 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 11 March 2010 03:07:18 GMT