- From: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
- Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2012 02:26:49 +0100
- To: MURATA Makoto <eb2m-mrt@asahi-net.or.jp>
- Cc: "public-i18n-cjk@w3.org" <public-i18n-cjk@w3.org>, KOBAYASHI Tatsuo(FAMILY Given) <tlk@kobysh.com>
MURATA Makoto, Fri, 24 Feb 2012 07:47:59 +0900: > I am wondering why there have been no reactions to my mail. Or, > do people discuss about double-sided ruby only for justifying optional > rb elements rather than committing to HTML double-sided ruby? Rather than assuming that a good bye to double sided ruby can permit that we drop <rb>, I would suggest to first define the requirements for single ruby. And thereafter to check whether the outcome of the single ruby case, has anything to say with regard to how simple it would be to support double sided ruby. For single sided ruby, the choice of row-major coding style versus column-major coding style will decide: In single-sided column-major coding style, then <rb> is not strictly necessary. But in the more <table> element inspired single-sided row-major coding style, then <rb> seems necessary in order to associate ruby texts with specific base characters. The advantages of row-major coding style is fallback, searching, accessibility and stuff like that. Since ruby is meant to benefit users and not only be a visual extra, it seems logical to give high priority to these issues. > Note that double-sided ruby "is also very rare.", according to JLRec. > > http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/WD-jlreq-20111129/#choice_of_sides_for_ruby_with_respect_to_base_characters -- Leif Halvard Silli
Received on Friday, 24 February 2012 01:27:24 UTC