Re: <ruby>, etc. in HTML5

Brian Smith wrote:
> Masataka Yakura wrote:
>> <ruby>
>> <rbc><rb> 矢倉 眞隆 </rb></rbc>
>> <rtc><rt> やくら まさたか </rt></rtc>
>> <rtc><rt> Masataka Yakura </rt></rtc>
>> </ruby>
> 
> If you want to preserve the character-by-character, you need something like this:

Well, I was just playing with my signature, but thanks for noticing ;)

> <ruby><rbc><rb>矢</rb><rb>倉</rb><rb>眞</rb><rb>隆</rb></rbc>
>       <rtc><rt>や</rt><rt>くら</rt><rt>まさ</rt><rt>たか</rt></rtc>
>       <rtc><rt>Ya</rt><rt>kura</rt> <rt>Masa</rt><rt>taka</rt></rtc></ruby>
> 
> But then you cannot do the transposition of your first and last names. Is name transposition a common use of Ruby? Personally, I find it confusing.

I don't think it's necessary to markup my romanized name char-by-char,
<rtc><rt rbspan="4">Masataka Yakura</rt></rtc> is just fine.

> I also don't understand why the Ruby Annotation recommendation forbids <rp> in complex ruby. I think it is just as applicable to complex ruby as it is to simple ruby. In particular, I would think that the following would be the best way of marking up your name in ruby:
> 
> <ruby><rbc><rb>矢</rb><rb>倉</rb><rb>眞</rb><rb>隆</rb></rbc><rp>(</rp><rtc><rt>や</rt><rt>くら</rt><rt>まさ</rt><rt>たか</rt></rtc><rp>/</rp><rtc><rt>Ya</rt><rt>kura</rt> <rt>Masa</rt><rt>taka</rt></rtc><rp>)</rp></ruby>
> 
> (All in one Ruby block), or:
> 
> <ruby><rbc><rb>矢</rb><rb>倉</rb></rbc><rp>(</rp><rtc><rt>や</rt><rt>くら</rt></rtc><rp>/</rp><rtc><rt>Ya</rt><rt>kura</rt></rtc><rp>)</rp></ruby><ruby><rbc><rb>眞</rb><rb>隆</rb></rbc><rp>(</rp><rtc><rt>まさ</rt><rt>たか</rt></rtc><rp>/</rp><rtc><rt>Masa</rt><rt>taka</rt></rtc><rp>)</rp></ruby>
> 
> (separate ruby blocks for each name).
> 
> Notice the lack of whitespace, so that browsers that don't understand Ruby markup will not display any whitespace inappropriately.

Yeah. I agree that would look better.

But, the thing is, it's too verbose. I don't wanna write such tags, tags 
and tags to markup my name present nicely...

If we can define an algorithm which determines the base text, it'll be 
nice because then we can make <rb> optional, and thus being compatible 
with the current IE implementation.


-- 
Masataka Yakura
<yakura-masataka@mitsue.co.jp>