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

FW: ruby and rb tag

From: Koji Ishii <kojiishi@gluesoft.co.jp>
Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2012 00:09:41 -0500
To: "CJK discussion (public-i18n-cjk@w3.org)" <public-i18n-cjk@w3.org>
Message-ID: <A592E245B36A8949BDB0A302B375FB4E0D3297CD0B@MAILR001.mail.lan>
...and here's another one followed.

-----Original Message-----
From: Roland Steiner
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2012 3:06 PM
To: Koji Ishii
Subject: Re: ruby and rb tag

On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 16:35, Koji Ishii <kojiishi@gluesoft.co.jp> wrote:
>>    <ruby><rb>BASE1</rb><rb>BASE2</rb><rt>TEXT1</rt></ruby>
>> Should TEXT1 annotate BASE1 or BASE2? Currently it'd be BASE2. Now suppose we append <rt>TEXT2</rt>:
> We're asking to associate TEXT1 with BASE1. See "Fallback" case we're discussing.

I expected this answer, but that is would really cause some complications - for example, assume the following comes at the end of a line:


When this is being layout, 'A', 'B' and 'C' still fit on the line, but then the <rt> is associated with the first <rb>, extending its size. With this, the 2nd and 3rd <rb> suddenly no longer fit on the line and have to be relayouted. This gets even more complicated with ruby-overhang. Furthermore, inserting and removing <rb> and <rt> elements would shift around which <rt> is associated with which <rb>.

> The spacing issue is also interesting. We have a use case to use ruby
> for letter-by-letter, so squashing white spaces is desired for this case.
> White space collapsing is part of CSS3 Text, so I think it's not good to
> make special case here, but if good use cases exist, I'm very happy
> to discuss how to resolve that. Is it necessary to resolve this before
> we resolve inclusion of rb, or could it be postponed until CSS Ruby
> spec starts?

Postponing it should be fine.


- Roland
Received on Wednesday, 25 January 2012 05:12:45 UTC

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