- From: Ishii, Koji a | Koji | BLD <koji.a.ishii@mail.rakuten.com>
- Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2013 17:48:17 +0000
- To: Robin Berjon <robin@w3.org>, Bill McCoy <whmccoy@gmail.com>
- CC: "public-digipub-ig-comment@w3.org" <public-digipub-ig-comment@w3.org>
I suppose you're aware of this, but fantasai and I are working on CSS Ruby Level 1 these days. We're ready to publish WD, I guess within a few weeks. http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css-ruby/ One thing I would like all of us to keep in mind is that, we need a clear separation of markups and styles. This hasn't been done for a long period of time, including EPUB discussions. That was intentional, just because we knew we didn't have resources to work on CSS ruby at that point, so I took it as an intentional hack. We can't keep using the hack forever. Fantasai and I think that this HTML5 extension spec is the timing we have to fix this, and that drove us to start writing CSS Ruby spec in June. As you can see from the document, Jukugo-ruby is a styling property that should be written in CSS spec, and I wish HTML spec covers only required constructs in markup side. Fnatasai and I are fully supporting your efforts to finish the extension spec, its implementations, and test suites by the next July. Implementers can write parser code only with the HTML extension spec, but they'd also need a spec for box model for the corresponding ruby DOM. That must be written in CSS Ruby spec, and therefore we're trying to stabilize section 2 Ruby Formatting Model early enough for the HTML extension spec implementers. This is a big difference between ruby and other new elements in HTML5 such as <section>. The <section> element doesn't do any special rendering without the help from CSS, so it doesn't require box model and therefore HTML WG can define by its own. Ruby, however, requires box model defined, so we need both HTML and CSS spec in parallel. Is this split of the work reasonable? /koji On 9/12/13 4:25 PM, "Robin Berjon" <robin@w3.org> wrote: [Moving the discussion to the right list] On 05/09/2013 17:55 , Bill McCoy wrote: > Thanks for the quick response, I made email introductions separately for > you to the Taiwan folks who had previously pinged me about it. Thanks a lot, I will follow up on this. > Re: use of Ruby presently in eBooks, the Japanese publishing industry > has developed a profile of EPUB 3 that in my understanding is > significantly adopted already there for both reflowable and fixed-layout > content. It references Ruby in some detai. As the profile as a whole is > EPUB 3 compatible and EPUB 3 normatively references HTML5 that would > imply this usage is XHTML5-based. Indeed, it is XHTML5 based. What is unclear from this document is whether it supports all of what is currently in the HTML5 draft or just a subset (only a subset is discussed, but it is unclear whether that entail that only that subset is supported, or whether it just reflects what was worth discussing). It would be most useful to be able to comb through a representative corpus. I've emailed EBPAJ to ask if they can assist. > But Ruby also in my understanding has > styling-related aspects (see: > >http://www.idpf.org/epub/30/spec/epub30-contentdocs.html#sec-css-ruby-posi >tion > ) so I think this involves CSS spec(s) as well as HTML5 spec, perhaps. Indeed, and the CSS Ruby spec is being worked on in parallel: http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css-ruby/ It needs to align with what is done in HTML. We're working together with fantasai to make sure that's the case. -- Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/ - @robinberjon
Received on Tuesday, 17 September 2013 17:48:56 UTC