RE: Thoughts on ruby

Hi Kenny. 

I think it's important not to close options unnecessarily, especially as the
ruby markup was not designed solely to cater for the traditional ruby
application, but could be put to use for linguistic glosses, etc.  It's not
solely the direction we are talking about, but the placement relative to the
base. We need a ruby-position property anyway to determine whether the ruby
should appear above or below the base, it seems clean to have the bopomofo
value to switch on the typical (implementation dependent) arrangement for
bopomofo, rather than one of the more usual styles. Indeed the direction of
before and after ruby changes according to the orientation of the base text
- but bopomofo style ruby does not.

RI


============
Richard Ishida
Internationalization Lead
W3C (World Wide Web Consortium)

http://www.w3.org/International/
http://rishida.net/




> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-i18n-cjk-request@w3.org [mailto:public-i18n-cjk-
> request@w3.org] On Behalf Of KangHao Lu (Kenny)
> Sent: 24 September 2010 17:26
> To: public-i18n-cjk@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Thoughts on ruby
> 
> 
> > [5] A number of people have suggested that implementations should
> > activate
> > different behaviour when they find bopomofo characters being used as
> > ruby
> > text, either by examining the characters or by looking at the
> > language. I
> > disagree, since I've seen examples of ruby where the author wanted the
> > bopomofo to appear over the base text, like Japanese furigana,
> > rather than
> > in the typical location. I think users need the power to make that
> > choice,
> > and that's why we need a bopomofo property value in CSS3.
> 
> As a Taiwanese I have to say I've never seen bopomofo appear over the
> base text. Maybe I have not lived long enough as a Taiwanese :)
> 
> I suppose Japanese would never use 'ruby-position: bopomofo' and
> Bopomofo Ruby would almost never use 'ruby-position: before'. I am new
> to CSS, but should we not leave this as implementation detail? If I
> understand this correctly, the first priority is to define 'display:
> ruby' unambiguously (box-model, etc.), am I right? I think maybe we
> should define the model in a way that the direction is arbitrary and
> hence relying on implementation detail. And maybe it will cover the
> case for nesting ruby then everybody's happy... Please correct me if I
> am wrong anywhere.
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> Kenny
> 
> 
> 
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 9.0.856 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3148 - Release Date: 09/23/10
> 19:34:00

Received on Friday, 24 September 2010 17:14:52 UTC