- From: Martin J. Dürst <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
- Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2010 12:44:58 +0900
- To: "MURATA Makoto (FAMILY Given)" <eb2m-mrt@asahi-net.or.jp>
- CC: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, Richard Ishida <ishida@w3.org>, public-i18n-cjk@w3.org
On 2010/09/28 11:26, MURATA Makoto (FAMILY Given) wrote:
>>>> <ruby>
>>>> <ruby>東<rt>とう</rt>南<rt>なん</rt></ruby>
>>>> <rt>たつみ</rt>
>>>> </ruby>
>>>
>>> Yes, this is not really so bad. It's not so powerful as complex ruby, but
>>> perhaps it is good enough for supporting ruby specifically.
>>
>> The structure strikes me as wrong. Structurally, this means that
>> たつみ is an annotation of the *annotated combination of*
>> <ruby>東<rt>とう</rt>南<rt>なん</rt></ruby>. That is not the intent.
>> The base of the たつみ is 東南 characters only.
>
> I think this is a subjective argument. One could argue that たつみ applies
> to the annotated combination. とう and なん provide "on" (pronounciation
> borrowed from Chinese). The entire mark up means that
> 東 may be prounounced as とう, 南 may be prounounced as なん,
> but the Japanese traditional prounciation ("kun") is たつみ.
I don't think the argument is very subjective. As the originals are only
on paper, it's indeed not obvious what the essential structure is. But
it's easy to take either side of ruby markup away. I think most people,
when they see ruby on both sides, don't think that one side is applied
to anything more than the base text.
Regards, Martin.
--
#-# Martin J. Dürst, Professor, Aoyama Gakuin University
#-# http://www.sw.it.aoyama.ac.jp mailto:duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp
Received on Tuesday, 28 September 2010 03:45:49 UTC