W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > October 2012

[Bug 19251] New: i18n-ISSUE-196: Mono-ruby vs group ruby examples

From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2012 16:34:47 +0000
To: public-html@w3.org
Message-ID: <bug-19251-2495@http.www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/>

           Summary: i18n-ISSUE-196: Mono-ruby vs group ruby examples
           Product: HTML WG
           Version: unspecified
          Platform: PC
        OS/Version: All
            Status: NEW
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P2
         Component: HTML5 spec
        AssignedTo: erika.doyle@microsoft.com
        ReportedBy: www-international@w3.org
         QAContact: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
                CC: mike@w3.org, public-html-wg-issue-tracking@w3.org,
                    public-html@w3.org, www-international@w3.org

4.6.20 The ruby element

(endorsed by the i18n WG)

This is about the examples entitled "Mono-ruby for individual base characters",
"Mono-ruby for compound words (jukugo)", "Jukugo-ruby", "Group ruby for
describing meanings" and "Group ruby for Jukuji readings".

I think people will normally write the example




I suspect it will be seen as an academic distinction to separate mono ruby for
individual base characters from that for jukugo ruby.

I suggest that we have just one section "Mono-ruby" and choose an example that
has both individual and jukugo ruby in it (such as the example above) and note
the difference.

I suggest that we then add a note at the end that describes how the rendering
of jukugo-related ruby could be changed using CSS to achieve the overlapping
effects described in JLReq as 'jukugo-ruby'. A graphic could illustrate the
difference. The example in the "Jukugo-ruby" section is a good one for this.

Note, by the way, that there are frequent references to the ruby annotations as
hiragana or katakana. Actually they could be anything, including kanji. In
particular, they are not likely to be kana in Chinese. There should be some
qualification that the examples are about typical Japanese usage, or preferably
an example in Chinese with pinyin annotations. Also, base characters are not
always ideographic in Japanese.

I think it would make it simpler for readers to not separate group ruby for
phonetics vs meaning. The difference is irrelevant for markup. The thing that
is significant is the distinction between mono vs group ruby. I would propose a
single subsection for group ruby that shows examples of both phonetic and
meaning related annotation.

Richard Ishida can provide help to create the examples, if needed.

Configure bugmail: https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Received on Wednesday, 3 October 2012 16:34:48 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:16:28 UTC