- From: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
- Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2012 15:32:03 +0100
- To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Cc: public-i18n-cjk@w3.org
fantasai, Wed, 22 Feb 2012 12:21:03 +0100: > On 02/22/2012 05:37 AM, Roland Steiner wrote: >> With 'rspan' or <rtc>, there is no semantic link from the base to >> the text(s). For example: >> >> <ruby><rb>東<rb>京<rtc>とうきょう</ruby> > The assertion that there's no semantic link from the base text is > not true -- the association is implied by the structure of the markup. > We do this for tables, for <dl> markup, etc. As long as it's unambigously > defined what associates with what, there is no problem and it's perfectly > semantic. In general, I am in favor implicit mark-up semantics rather than idrefs, for marking up relationships. That said, I can see 3 advantages of @for - compared with 'the competition': 1. It might fit with the current non-conformance of <rb>, as it allows you to do things like this: <ruby><span id=a>abc</span><span id=b>def</span> <rt for=a >ABC</rt><rt for=b>DEF</rt> </ruby> Problem: What if @for points outside ruby? 2. In the accessibility community it seems to be a tendency to favor the use of idrefs for 'bolting' relationships. Problem: Keeping for/id in sync etc. 3. In case of double ruby, then instead of a fantasai's spanning <rpc> notes: <ruby><span id=a>abc</span><span id=b>def</span> <rt for=a >ABC</rt><rt for=b>DEF</rt> <rpc> for both #a and #b </rpc> </ruby> One could instead do: <ruby><span id=a>abc</span><span id=b>def</span> <rt for=a >ABC</rt><rt for=b>DEF</rt> <rt bottom='true' for='a b'> for both #a and #b </rt> </ruby> [As you can see, here I also used a @bottom to tell that it should go at the bottom side - see below.] > So, if out-of-band ruby annotations are needed, I suggest creating > a format optimized for that, rather than repurposing CSS. +1 > You've seen http://fantasai.inkedblade.net/weblog/2011/ruby/ > right? * Focusing on the need for <rb>: the most RUBY specific reason [as opposed to more general reasons] to include <rb>, seem to be what you, fantasai, at the bottom of your page - conclusion section - refer to as 'multi-pair word ruby': Without <rb>, one cannot have a mark-up based semantic relationship. Well, one could, but then would need to use e.g. a @for attribute. [Did Ian dismiss this too - the multi-pair use case? Or should we not think about Ian ...] * Extra use case for double ruby: Sometimes it is asked for support for inline <table> elements inside <p>. In fact, when investigating how <ruby> is actually done on the Web, we do see that authors retract to using <table> for this purpose — both for double and single ruby. I do think that ruby, both simple and double, sometimes could be an answer when authors jump to think that <p> should have been able to contain tables. * Double ruby technical: Attributes. Instead of adding <rtc>, could it be an option to add e.g. a boolean attribute to <rt>, in order to signify that it should be placed at the bottom? Example: <ruby> <rb>base1<rb>base2<rt>note1<rt>note2<rt bottom>NOTE1<rt bottom>NOTE2 </ruby> A spanning attribute as well: <ruby> <rb>base1<rb>base2<rt>note1<rt>note2<rt spanning>NOTE </ruby> -- Leif H Silli
Received on Wednesday, 22 February 2012 14:32:42 UTC