- 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>
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 > <ruby>東<rt>とう</rt>南<rt>なん</rt></ruby> <rt>たつみ</rt> </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 strongly. 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: bopomofo-right"? Re [6] To achieve the bare minimum, you might want finish easier parts. Probably, ruby-position first? Cheers, Makoto
Received on Saturday, 25 September 2010 04:18:55 UTC