W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-i18n-cjk@w3.org > July to September 2010

Re: Thoughts on ruby

From: MURATA Makoto (FAMILY Given) <eb2m-mrt@asahi-net.or.jp>
Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2010 13:18:14 +0900
To: "Richard Ishida" <ishida@w3.org>
Cc: <public-i18n-cjk@w3.org>, Murata <eb2m-mrt@asahi-net.or.jp>
Message-Id: <20100925131813.9BAE.B794FC04@asahi-net.or.jp>
Hello Richard,

Re: [1]  
I fixed the EGLS solutions wiki.  Thank you for providing info about
"complex ruby" implementations.

Re: [2] 
As long as rb can be added to HTML5 in a timely manner, I like the 
addition of optional rb elemetns.

Re: [3]  Some people think that nested ruby elements provide 
ruby text on both sides.  This is syntactically allowed, but HTML5 
says nothing about ruby text on both sides.  I do not think that 
it is more complex than "complex ruby" of XHTML Ruby annotation.

<ruby >

It is true that nested ruby never achieves arbitrary spanning.  But 
XML is not good at handling concurrent structures from the beginning.

> The
> arbitrary spanning of the XHTML model may be overly complicated for what is
> generally needed in Japanese, but it may prove very useful for other types
> of annotation, such as linguistic glosses of Arabic etc. (which I have seen
> in the wild). 

I see some values, but are they more than the implementation burden (and
possibly inefficiency) of complex ruby?  Some implementers say no

Re [4] 
I do not have a strong opinion about jukugo ruby.  But I guess that this 
is not very urgent.

Re [5]
So, do we need "ruby-position: bopomofo-above" and "ruby-position:

Re [6]
To achieve the bare minimum, you might want finish easier parts.  
Probably, ruby-position first?

Received on Saturday, 25 September 2010 04:18:55 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 15:59:14 UTC