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: 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>
Message-Id: <20100928092132.9C5D.B794FC04@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


from Taiwan

Received on Tuesday, 28 September 2010 00:21:57 UTC

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