- From: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
- Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2012 04:01:21 +0100
- To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Cc: public-i18n-cjk@w3.org
fantasai, Thu, 23 Feb 2012 03:29:43 +0100: > On 02/23/2012 03:02 AM, Roland Steiner wrote: >> On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 07:24, Leif Halvard Silli: >> >>> 2. Do we agree that column-major - what is in HTML5 now - should be >>> non-conforming? >> >> I don't think that's an option as it would break existing pages. A solution >> should have graceful fallback to both the current standard as well as to no >> <ruby> support. > > Agreed. Unless *I* misunderstood, then Roland misunderstood what 'column-major' meant. Hence, I am also uncertain what you mean - see my reply to him. > HTML5 ruby, as it stands now, can be folded into a either a > row-major model or a column-major model, Perhaps only my own problem, but I don't understand how one can — and what it means — to 'fold' HTML5's current model - column-major, <ruby><rb/><rt/><rb/> <rt/><rb/><rt/></ruby> into row-major: <ruby><rb/><rb/><rb/> <rt/><rt/><rt/><ruby> If we think that the row-major model is the way to go, then it is the one that should be conforming. What are the benefits of keeping the column-major model conforming? I see only one: Not disturbing authors. Are there others? The negative sides of column-major has to do with accessibility - in the widest sense of the word. Also, we think tactically — at least if Ian and/or the HTMLwg chairs are to be convinced, then to say 'but you can also use column-major', will only seem as if we have no good reason for saying that row-major should be the way forward. Also, it is often said that it is simplest if there is only one way to do it. And this seems like such a case. > so aside from the parsing > algorithm (Bug 13113), it does not create a conflict with moving > forward on a row-major model. It just means that in a row-major model, > the HTML5 markup is only capable of producing group ruby, not jukugo > ruby. But a row-major model can easily be a superset of what's in > HTML5 today. I don't understand how to see row-major as a superset of column-major. Please note that HTML5 does not limit itself to <ruby>rb<rt></ruby> — HTML5 currently also allows <ruby>rb<rt/>rb<rt/></ruby>. > http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=13113 (in which > hsivonen asks for parsing algorithm changes that would make HTML5 > future-compatible with row-major ruby markup) When you refero to that bug, then I think that you consider row-major ruby as a ruby which has support for <rtc> - and thus double sided ruby. However, that is not what Koji meant by row-major. It would be nice if we could decide about the model for single-sided, before deciding <rtc>. -- Leif H Silli
Received on Thursday, 23 February 2012 03:01:53 UTC