- From: Koji Ishii <kojiishi@gluesoft.co.jp>
- Date: Sun, 22 Jan 2012 01:29:34 -0500
- To: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
- CC: Richard Ishida <ishida@w3.org>, CJK discussion <public-i18n-cjk@w3.org>
> Why? Instead of auto-generating <rb> in the DOM, why not make <rb> obligatory? I'm personally fine with either, but I know some people wants to omit rb for simple case, so making it optional gets more people happy. Regards, Koji -----Original Message----- From: Leif Halvard Silli [mailto:xn--mlform-iua@målform.no] Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2012 7:08 AM To: Koji Ishii Cc: Richard Ishida; CJK discussion Subject: Re: Implying rb for accessibility (was RE: HTML5 and ruby Koji Ishii, Sat, 21 Jan 2012 15:17:24 -0500: >> 1. do we need rb for simple ruby, or will span suffice? (take into >> account the use case related to fallback) > > I went to a seminar about dyslexia in Japan today and wanted to share > what I heard there. [ … snip … ] > The researcher tried several methods to improve their readability and > found that the best method was to replace Kanji with Hiragana. > > To do that, we need this stylesheet in user stylesheet (or as a UA feature): > > rb { display: none; } > rt { display: inline; } > > We could have all textbooks to have rb if it's allowed. A good point. It is, in fact, a variant of what I told Martin: That <rb> allows us to hide the base for accessibility technology - such a screen readers. > And the world > becomes even friendlier to them if HTML5 implies rb tag when omitted. Why? Instead of auto-generating <rb> in the DOM, why not make <rb> obligatory? -- Leif Halvard Silli
Received on Sunday, 22 January 2012 06:32:33 UTC