- From: Richard Ishida <ishida@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2012 15:53:43 +0000
- To: "CJK discussion (public-i18n-cjk@w3.org)" <public-i18n-cjk@w3.org>
Ian Hickson, the HTML5 editor, is waiting for us to make some clear recommendations about whether rb is needed for simple ruby markup, and how to approach complex ruby support. Time is now pressing. We have until February 11th to submit a change proposal. In order to help focus the discussions on the bugzilla threads at https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=10830 (Please add support for rb) and https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=13113 I produced a wiki page at http://www.w3.org/International/wiki/Rb that shows alternative approaches that meet various use cases, and offers pros and cons for each. Please give your opinions, with reasoned arguments, on which approaches work best. Please try not to focus on one small aspect, but consider things within the wider framework. Note that we are not focusing on the legacy usage of rb as much as on how to make the markup as simple and effective as possible going forward. Here are some key questions: 1. do we need rb for simple ruby, or will span suffice? (take into account the use case related to fallback) 2. do we need rb and rtc for complex ruby support, or is it sufficient to rely on a mixture of recursive ruby markup plus a second <rt> element (depending on the use case)? I look forward to hearing from you. To avoid fragmentation, and because we can't discuss rb without discussing complex ruby, the i18n WG proposes that we make our comments on this list, and then put a summary proposal to the editor before the deadline for the change proposal. Best regards, RI PS: Leif Halvard Silli has independently submitted a change proposal by himself at http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/IncludeRB -- Richard Ishida Internationalization Activity Lead W3C (World Wide Web Consortium) http://www.w3.org/International/ http://rishida.net/
Received on Thursday, 12 January 2012 15:54:21 UTC