- From: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
- Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2012 04:09:09 +0100
- To: Koji Ishii <kojiishi@gluesoft.co.jp>
- Cc: Richard Ishida <ishida@w3.org>, CJK discussion (public-i18n-cjk@w3.org) <public-i18n-cjk@w3.org>
I have updated my IncludeRB Change Proposal [1]. Until now, it mostly focused on word-by-word related issues that support the inclusion of <rb> in HTML5. Namely: compatibility with existing code and tools, ability to identify the ruby base [or base 'word'] via CSS 2.1, problems related to use of ad-hoc wrappers such as <span> and metadata issues related to accessibility, language tagging etc. However, now I have updated the IncludeRB CP to also solve the letter-by-letter related details: [A] Letter-by-letter conformance: The IncludeRB proposal now says that there can only be a single adjacent par of <rb><rt> inside a <ruby>. Thus NOTE: An alternative solution could be to simply say that <ruby> should not not be used for letter-by-letter ruby unless one also uses <rbc>. Comments on this detail? [B] Complex ruby: <rbc> and <rtc> should be permitted. However Due to the parser differences [2], my CP reinstates only <rbc>. As a matter of fact, in Internet Explorer, then <rbc> creates zero problems - the ruby looks fine, even if you wrap the ruby base inside <rb>. And in Webkit, then the change of content model - [A] - creates a need for <rbc>, as it tends to fall apart otherwise. The introduction of <rbc> does not allow us to create double sided ruby - but at least it allows us to create ruby where the letter-by-letter should be possible to avoid. Example of what the suggestion implies: <ruby> <rbc> <rb>W</rb><rb>W</rb><rb>W</rb> </rbc> <rp>[</rp><rt>World</rt><rt>Wide</rt><rt>Web</rt><rp>]</rp </ruby> Question: Should <rbc> be obligatory? Or should it be allowed to ommit it? Omitting it works in IE. In my CP, I made it optional. Comments? [C] <rtc> can be introduced in HTML6, and for that reason, my CP says that the HTML5 *parser* should be updated to not auto-close the <rtc> elemetn when the parser sees <rt> or <rp>. Feedback of any kind is welcome. If you think you can write a better and/or more realistic CP and don't want to cooperate with me in making this one better, then please feel free to 'steal' - but it would be nice if you tell in your CP that you borrowed some ideas. [1] http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/IncludeRB [2] http://www.w3.org/mid/20120122134024833859.3dc4f444@xn--mlform-iua.no -- leif h silli
Received on Monday, 23 January 2012 03:09:49 UTC