- From: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
- Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2012 11:50:42 +0100
- To: Taro Yamamoto <tyamamot@adobe.com>
- Cc: "public-i18n-cjk@w3.org" <public-i18n-cjk@w3.org>
Taro Yamamoto, Wed, 25 Jan 2012 01:57:07 -0800: > However, in the world wide web and digital publishing today, there > should be better methods for annotating text than traditional ruby > that used to work well for printed books. Such as? There is an alternative to [simple] ruby: <abbr title='World Wide Web'>WWW</abbr> However, ruby - element solution — have some well known advantages over abbr@title - attribute solutions. > I know that double-sided ruby is more widely used in the field of > textbook and study aid book publishing than in other areas of > publishing in Japan. But if so, we should use a better method to > annotate text (than traditional ruby), with which the readers > (students or pupils?) can understand the text more easily and > intuitively, without damaging the spacing and readability of the > entire text. Shouldn't we utilize a more sophisticated method > designed with our latest knowledge in the field of human computer > interaction? Which are these better methods? I can't comment on the need for double sided ruby in Japanese ... But I suspect that it is likely that the alternative to ruby - in general - would become 'author, please make your pages in a different way so that you don't need ruby'. Isn't the problem just that Donald Knuth did not look at ruby? :-D I also suspect that ruby can be combined with 'our latest knowledge'. -- leif halvard silli
Received on Wednesday, 25 January 2012 10:51:21 UTC