- 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