W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > December 2010

Re: [css-ruby] Proposal to publish new WD

From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Date: Thu, 02 Dec 2010 20:22:34 -0500
Message-ID: <4CF8465A.8080805@inkedblade.net>
To: Richard Ishida <ishida@w3.org>
CC: www-style@w3.org
On 12/02/2010 09:26 AM, Richard Ishida wrote:
>> From: fantasai [mailto:fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net]
>> Sent: 01 December 2010 19:18
>>
>> On 12/01/2010 12:30 PM, Richard Ishida wrote:
>>> Folks,
>>>
>>> I'd like to publish the version of the CSS3 Ruby Module at
>> http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css3-ruby/
>>> as a new WD.  This will take the ruby module out of CR and revert it to a
>> Working Draft.
>>>
>>> Before publishing I'd like to apply all change marks in the editor's
>>> version of the document, *with the exception of* those in Section 4.1,
>>> so I'd like the Working Group to comment on whether those proposed
>>> changes are controversial.  They are essentially editorial in nature,
>>> but note, in particular, that I have replaced most references to JIS
>>> X-4051 with references to Requirements for Japanese Text Layout
>>> (http://www.w3.org/TR/jlreq/).
>>>
>>> I expect all editorial notes and change marks in section 4.1 to remain.
>>
>> I've reviewed the changes, and I agree with all of them except the ones
>> in 4.1. I would like to see the following changes before publication:
>>    - all of the suggested changes outside of 4.1 incorporated into
>>      the text
>>    - the editorial changes to the note about traditional Chinese
>>      in 4.1 incorporated into the text
>
> There are two notes.  I think you mean this text?
>
> "Tone marks are spacing characters ..."

No, I mean the changes in the paragraph above that literally includes the
words "traditional Chinese". :)

>>    - all other changes in 4.1 converted to "Issue" comments, if
>>      they are kept
>
> I'm trying to think of an easy way to do that.  Since the change marks
> themselves would indicate that text is not final, would it be sufficient
> to add a line at the top of 4.1 that says:
>
> "Issue: the change marks in this section indicate proposed changes that
> still need further discussion."

I would prefer they be marked as issues. Change marks indicates to me
that you intend to make those changes because nobody yet has objected
to those changes, whereas I disagree with the changes. :)

You can remove the change mark for renaming 'right' to 'bopomofo' as
you have already marked this as an issue.

You can remove the paragraph about non-bopomofo characters' rendering
being undefined by adopting my suggestion to force writing-mode to
vertical. In general it is not good practice to make things undefined
when there is a reasonable way to define them.

With regards to the Note about bopomofo and tone marks, I need an
answer to my question about how bopomofo is intended to be rendered
when used either as
   a) before or after ruby in vertical text
   b) regular (non-ruby) text in vertical text
Does assigning "ruby-position: before" or putting bopomofo as regular
text make the tone marks no longer have their special behavior in
vertical writing modes? If so, then we do need a bopomofo value for
ruby-position, and the details of such positioning can be described
under that section, because such positioning does not apply to anything
else.

But if the special placement of tone marks applies for vertical bopomofo
regardless of its ruby-position value and regardless of whether it is
ruby or base text, then this section is not specific to the bopomofo
value and therefore belongs in a more general section, not here.

~fantasai
Received on Friday, 3 December 2010 01:23:11 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:34 GMT