W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-international@w3.org > January to March 2013

Re: Ruby extension: empty ruby text

From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2013 15:31:16 -0800
Message-ID: <512BF444.6020707@inkedblade.net>
To: Richard Ishida <ishida@w3.org>
CC: Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>, 'WWW International' <www-international@w3.org>, CJK discussion <public-i18n-cjk@w3.org>, Ishii Koji <kojiishi@gluesoft.co.jp>
On 02/25/2013 08:36 AM, Richard Ishida wrote:
> On 25/02/2013 15:31, Robin Berjon wrote:
>> On 22/02/2013 03:12 , fantasai wrote:
>>> On 02/15/2013 11:52 AM, Richard Ishida wrote:
>>>> http://rishida.net/misc/ruby/ruby-authoring.html ...
>>>
>>> These are very interesting examples! I have a couple questions on them.
>>>
>>> In the example with 振り仮名...
>>>
>>>    - In the markup with an empty <rt>, it would render correctly, but
>>>      the accessibility story would be broken because you would replace
>>>      り with nothing if you were replacing the bases with their <rt>s.
>>
>> Would it break if the accessibility algorithm were: "replace the base
>> with the annotation UNLESS the annotation is empty"? It's not hard to
>> specify.
>
>
> Not sure whether you were asking me or Fantasai, but it sounds good to me.
>
> One thing I haven't yet asked, but keep meaning to, is whether we expect people to regularly sandwich hiragana/katakana in
> ruby elements for simplicity. Imagine, for example, a sentence composed of (K)anji and (h)iragana as follows, where the last
> three h's are the gramatical ending of a verb:
>
> KKKKhKKhKhhh
>
> would we require people to do
>
> <ruby>KKKK</ruby>h<ruby>KK</ruby>h<ruby>K</ruby>hhh
>
> or would it be ok to save a lot of typing and do
>
> <ruby>KKKKhKKhKhhh</ruby>
>
> which could be marked up as follows where B=ruby base, a=ruby text, h=hiragana and <space>=empty rt:
>
> <ruby>BBaaBBaah BBaah Kahhh </ruby>
>
> Its very tempting to do that, especially for a long text that needs rubification by hand.

I don't think this is a good idea. It feels wrong.
Also, it makes it much harder to use any other
inline markup.

One thing I had suggested was to do the somewhat
confusing thing and make the <ruby> start tag
optional. This shortens markup slightly to

   <rb>B<rb>B<rt>a<rt>a</ruby>

instead of (for the same DOM):

   <ruby><rb>B<rb>B<rt>a<rt>a</ruby>

~fantasai
Received on Monday, 25 February 2013 23:31:45 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 25 February 2013 23:31:47 GMT