W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-i18n-cjk@w3.org > January to March 2012

Re: Implying rb for accessibility (was RE: HTML5 and ruby

From: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2012 03:17:13 +0100
To: Martin J. Dürst <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
Cc: Koji Ishii <kojiishi@gluesoft.co.jp>, Richard Ishida <ishida@w3.org>, CJK discussion (public-i18n-cjk@w3.org) <public-i18n-cjk@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20120123031713348848.06cc8be8@xn--mlform-iua.no>
"Martin J. Dürst", Mon, 23 Jan 2012 10:38:53 +0900:
> On 2012/01/22 7:07, Leif Halvard Silli wrote:
>> Koji Ishii, Sat, 21 Jan 2012 15:17:24 -0500:
>>> 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?
> We are already trying hard to get <rb> accepted. If we propose that 
> it be required, I think this will become even harder. While there are 
> a lot of sites with <rb>, there are also a lot of sites without, and 
> these would suddenly become invalid.

I understand - and it is for these reasons I have made it optional in 
the IncludeRB change proposal that I have written. However, I'm not 
*certain* that it is the best approach, from a strategic point of view. 
Because: The HTML WG Chairs look for a combination of 'most convincing' 
and 'least controversial'. If one argue sloppily in favor of something, 
then I fear that one will loose it. 

I therefore hope that you at leas agree that the examples in the HTML5 
spec should be changed to demonstrate use of <rb>. Because, after all, 
we believe there is benefit in using it. If we don't demonstrate that 
we believe in <rb>, then the Chairs get the impression that is not very 
controversial to not include it.

At least, this is my strategic evaluation, having observed the result 
of many HTML WG Decision processes.
Leif H Silli
Received on Monday, 23 January 2012 02:17:57 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 15:59:16 UTC