- From: MURATA Makoto (FAMILY Given) <eb2m-mrt@asahi-net.or.jp>
- Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2010 09:21:32 +0900
- To: "Richard Ishida" <ishida@w3.org>
- Cc: <public-i18n-cjk@w3.org>, Murata <eb2m-mrt@asahi-net.or.jp>
> > Re: [2] > > As long as rb can be added to HTML5 in a timely manner, I like the > > addition of optional rb elemetns. > > I plan to raise a bug this week asking for optional rb markup to be allowed. > On the face of it, it seems an easy and simple addition, if accepted. Let's see what happens. > > Re: [3] Some people think that nested ruby elements provide ... > Elika, I'm not yet familiar with inline tables in CSS, but I've been > wondering whether they are a better candidate for handling things like > linguistic glosses and such. > > I'm beginning to wonder whether we should refocus the scope of ruby markup > and styling to specifically address just ruby needs for CJK. The current > model was always vaguely intended to be useable for other things, but > although I've heard numerous people suggest how it could be used for things > other than ruby, I don't think I've really come across a convincing case, > especially given the two rubys per base character limitation. I think that generalization for no use case is harmful. > > Re [5] > > So, do we need "ruby-position: bopomofo-above" and "ruby-position: > > bopomofo-right"? > > No. Bopomofo ruby is also special in that .... (2) it always appears to the > right of the character, > whether the base orientation is vertical or horizontal. This is not true. See http://www.asahi-net.or.jp/~eb2m-mrt/EGLS_TW_eng/00004.pdf from Taiwan Cheers, Makoto
Received on Tuesday, 28 September 2010 00:21:57 UTC