- From: Koji Ishii <kojiishi@gluesoft.co.jp>
- Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2012 11:01:19 -0500
- To: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- CC: "public-i18n-cjk@w3.org" <public-i18n-cjk@w3.org>
> * 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 ...] Ian suggested in his comment #17 of bug 13113[1] that rb is not necessary if we can go with column-major approach. That is why I asked Roland's help to discuss on advantages and disadvantages of row/column-major approaches. My understanding now is in the bottom of the original e-mail; if we need inline style, row-major is the way to go, and therefore we need rb. [1] https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=13113#c17 Regards, Koji
Received on Wednesday, 22 February 2012 16:01:50 UTC