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

Re: Ruby proposal for XSL 2.0

From: Roland Steiner <rolandsteiner@google.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2010 13:41:40 +0900
Message-ID: <AANLkTikXfjb-eyXekS6ag_V1HvPfwb5tP06mmoKD-PfR@mail.gmail.com>
To: Tony Graham <Tony.Graham@menteithconsulting.com>
Cc: member-japanese-layout-en@w3.org, member-i18n-core@w3.org, www-style@w3.org, w3c-xsl-fo-sg@w3.org
On Fri, Oct 8, 2010 at 9:44 AM, Tony Graham <
Tony.Graham@menteithconsulting.com> wrote:

> On Tue, February 2, 2010 4:09 pm, Tony Graham wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 29 2010 07:52:16 +0000, rolandsteiner@google.com wrote:
> ...
> >> ad "4.3.10 ruby-mode": if the ruby markup follows 3.4.2, then I don't
> >> believe
> >> this attribute is necessary, since if the user doesn't want ruby texts
> >> to
> >> intrude on each other, s/he can just put them in separate <ruby>
> >> elements.
> >
> > You may be onto something there.  I'll have to think about it.
>
> If they were in separate <ruby> elements, then you're losing part of the
> meaning of the markup, and it seems to me that marking it up as separate
> <ruby> might affect the correct presentation of the jukugo-ruby at line
> breaks and would break the requirement that "jukugo-ruby and its base
> characters cannot be the subject of inter-character space expansion for
> line adjustment" (from text above
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/NOTE-jlreq-20090604/#fig2_3_28-en).


Granted, this attribute does give you slightly more control. However, I'd
argue that if you set it to "mono", it's no longer a jukugo ruby anyway, so
I'm not sure the notes you refer would/should apply then. IOW, you'd define
a jukugo-ruby-rendered-as-mono hybrid.

Cheers,

- Roland
Received on Friday, 22 October 2010 04:42:40 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:33 GMT