- From: Koji Ishii <kojiishi@gluesoft.co.jp>
- Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2012 10:47:27 -0500
- To: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>, CJK discussion <public-i18n-cjk@w3.org>
I think he just tried to let us know possible technical problems in our current proposal. That's a precious feedback because we might face it as we talk to HTML WG and to other vendors. I haven't come up with "then what we should do" yet, but I hope discussion here can discover a good method to resolve the original issue you listed without requiring too much relayout. -----Original Message----- From: Leif Halvard Silli [mailto:xn--mlform-iua@målform.no] Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2012 8:07 PM To: Koji Ishii Cc: CJK discussion Subject: Re: FW: ruby and rb tag Koji Ishii, Wed, 25 Jan 2012 00:06:49 -0500: > Since Leif mentioned he'd like to hear what implementers would say, > and I agree with that, I contacted Roland at Google, who implemented > ruby on WebKit and got his response. I'm forwarding this with his > permission. I'll forward another one that followed this as well. These answers are very, very interesting. But one question/answer I miss, is the question about rb/rt/rb/rt versus rb/rb/rt/rt, with a perspective on the existing and potential problems related to that, as we recently discussed. [Spell checking, auto-translation, screen readers, find-in-page, online search engines that need to identify words and sentences etc. ] Leif H Silli
Received on Wednesday, 25 January 2012 15:50:32 UTC