Re: HTML Ruby extensions

On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 at 6:02 AM, Robin Berjon <robin@w3.org> wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> I am about to send an email to public-html-admin requesting publication for
> an extension specification covering HTML Ruby, but that's just the
> administrativia and I wanted to prod this crowd here for feedback.
>
> The draft snapshot is at:
>
>     http://darobin.github.io/html-ruby/snapshots/FPWD.html
>
> The editor's draft:
>
>     http://darobin.github.io/html-ruby/
>
> The extension spec addresses the following bugs:
>
>     https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=20115
>     https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=20114
>     https://www.w3.org/bugzilla_public/show_bug.cgi?id=19255
>     https://www.w3.org/bugzilla_public/show_bug.cgi?id=19254
>     https://www.w3.org/bugzilla_public/show_bug.cgi?id=19253
>     https://www.w3.org/bugzilla_public/show_bug.cgi?id=19252
>     https://www.w3.org/bugzilla_public/show_bug.cgi?id=19251
>
> In general, it addresses the use cases carefully gathered and developed over
> time by our friends in the I18N group:
>
>     http://www.w3.org/TR/ruby-use-cases/
>
> More specifically, it changes the current HTML specification in the
> following ways:
>
>     • Removes nested <ruby> elements as a way of capturing double-sided
> ruby. As far as I can tell this is not implemented and not a single instance
> shows up in the corpora I've been able to access. An <rtc> element is
> introduced instead, which has a cleaner and more extensible model
>     • Introduces an <rb> element for explicit ruby base text. This
> corresponds to actual usage in the wild where the <rb> element is relatively
> common. It also makes some use cases simpler to address.
>     • The algorithm to process ruby has been entirely overhauled. The
> existing one is buggy, and does not process white space in a satisfactory
> manner for non-CJK languages.
>
> Overall, since alignment with CSS is particularly important in this case, I
> also worked closely with Fantasai in order to align well with the new CSS
> Ruby model:
>
>     http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css-ruby/
>
> The goal for this extension specification is to be reviewed on its own, but
> to eventually become integrated into the HTML specification. How much of it
> gets integrated and when largely depends on implementations. If
> implementations support this inside of the CR period, then all of it will
> simply be folded into HTML. If however the newer features are not yet
> supported well enough, a "viable subset" will get folded in. That viable
> subset will be primarily comprised of existing elements as processed by the
> new algorithm.
>
> As a final note, those of you who are interested in such things may be
> interested to see that I am requesting publication of this document under
> the new dual CC-BY/W3C license. But more about that in my coming email to
> the -admin list.
>
> Your feedback is very much welcome!

Great to see this progress! <ruby> has been a bit of a mess and
inconsistent with implementations, so I'm happy you worked through
this. I couldn't tell whether it is all correct for current use of
annotations, but it seems fine. I'd be happy to apply the required
changes to the WebVTT spec once the changes are agreed in this WG.

An observation / question of clarification:
I think the text for the third example may not be quite correct:
"This example can also be written as follows, using one ruby element
with two segments of base text and two annotations (one for each)
rather than two back-to-back ruby elements each with one base text
segment and annotation (as in the markup above):"

There are more than 2 ruby elements in example 3, and there is more
than 1 ruby element in example 4.


Cheers,
Silvia.

Received on Tuesday, 8 October 2013 10:43:22 UTC