W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > January 2014

Re: [css-ruby] Should `ruby-merge' initial value be `auto'?

From: kawabata taichi <kawabata.taichi@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2014 09:38:06 -0800
Message-ID: <CA+PRW9-EM=JutP_r+5F82vghBZWUXx_yA8oEAxCBiaXXr2SnEw@mail.gmail.com>
To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Cc: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Dear Fantasai,

It seems your mentioned point is reasonable. I've talked with some
Japanese correspondences, and concluded that this
proposal would need further study and investigations.

As of it, we would like to retract this proposal for now.

Thank you for your valueable comments.

2014-01-26 fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>

> On 01/24/2014 09:47 AM, kawabata taichi wrote:
>> Dear people concerned with CSS-Ruby,
>> Currently, CSS Ruby `ruby-merge` property's initial value is
>> `separate`.(http://www.w3.org/TR/css3-ruby/#collapsed-ruby). I would
>> prefer that this initial value be `auto` instead of 'separate'.
>> Rationale: Multiple <rb> tag within single <ruby> tag is typically
>> used for compound words (Jukugo). For Jukugo, the best rendering
>> algorithm is "Jukugo-Ruby algorithm", as its name says (see JLREQ
>> 3.3.7). By specifying `auto` by default, the rendering engine would
>> display the ruby text by the best algorithm it supports (including
>> Jukugo-Ruby algorithm).
>> The current initial value, 'separate', is typically suitable if multiple
>> <rb>s do not constitute a compound word. In such a case, an author would
>> put them in different ruby segments, thus this spec is a bit
>> unnatural.
>> As of it, I would like to propose to change the initial value of
>> `ruby-merge' to be 'auto' instead of 'separate'.
> Hi Kawabata-san,
> We chose the initial value of ruby-merge as 'separate' because
> this is the simplest to implement, and would result in consistent
> results for implementations that support ruby-merge's advanced
> behaviors and those that don't.
> If we make it 'auto', then older/simpler implementations will
> display as 'separate', and more sophisticated ones will display as
> jukugo. This may or may not be what the author intended. So we
> chose 'separate' as the initial value. This will give consistent
> results, and won't surprisingly display as jukugo in some browsers
> when the author has only seen 'separate' in his browser. To get
> jukugo, the author has to specify 'auto' explicitly. This makes us
> more sure that it is what he really wants.
> At least, this was the logic I had. I'm open to counter-arguments. :)
> ~fantasai

川幡 太一 (KAWABATA, Taichi) E-mail: kawabata.taichi@gmail.com
Received on Tuesday, 28 January 2014 17:38:37 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:39:18 UTC