- From: fantasai via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2023 19:50:19 +0000
- To: public-i18n-archive@w3.org
Murata-san asked me about interleaved vs tabular ruby by email, posting my response here on his request (part of which r12a quotes above): >> Are there any fundamental >> differences between rb+ rt+ and (rb, rt)+ ? >> For example, is some layout impossible for the >> former? > >Nothing is impossible, exactly, but when you use the (rb, rt)+ pattern: >* the fallback behavior is not good (per-syllable fallback, rather than per-word) >* naive screenreading is terrible (per-syllable repetition, rather than per-word) >* intentional inline rendering of ruby would require new complicated capabilities in CSS to render it as per-word. > (Technically it can be done as a new feature that moves text inside a SPAN or something like that, but... proper inline rendering can already be done right now with `display: inline` when the (rb, rt)+ pattern is used.) > >Note that (rb, rt)+ is already implemented in Firefox and Kindle, and it seems likely for it to be added to WebKit and Blink in the near future also. (Blink already sent an Intent to Implement.) > > I think Florian did a talk about this: I have this link from him, but my Japanese is not advanced enough to know what exactly he is explaining. ^_^ > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S4xE8hCOmK8&t=2198s -- GitHub Notification of comment by fantasai Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/jlreq/issues/385#issuecomment-1823423402 using your GitHub account -- Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Wednesday, 22 November 2023 19:50:20 UTC