- From: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
- Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2012 23:24:36 +0100
- To: Koji Ishii <kojiishi@gluesoft.co.jp>
- Cc: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, "public-i18n-cjk@w3.org" <public-i18n-cjk@w3.org>
Koji Ishii, Wed, 22 Feb 2012 11:01:19 -0500: >> * 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. So you do not only say 'if we need' ... You also say 'because we need' inline style, row-major is the way to go, and therefore we need rb. Perhaps we could see if we agree about that? 1. Are there anyone - apart from Ian - with a stake in this, that argue that it should be column-major? 2. Do we agree that column-major - what is in HTML5 now - should be non-conforming? -- Leif Halvard Silli
Received on Wednesday, 22 February 2012 22:25:09 UTC