- From: MURATA Makoto <eb2m-mrt@asahi-net.or.jp>
- Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2012 18:57:49 +0900
- To: "public-i18n-cjk@w3.org" <public-i18n-cjk@w3.org>
Martin, > On 2012/02/22 15:51, MURATA Makoto wrote: >> >> Should HTML (and CSS) support double-sided ruby? I think that >> more discussions are needed before we discuss about the design >> of HTML markup. >> >> First, as I wrote in my mail "Desiderata for automatic layout of >> double-sided ruby", an important example of double-sided ruby >> makes automatic formatting and markup design (ruby for ruby, >> and right-left-swapping) very difficult. What is the scope of >> double-sided ruby? >> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-i18n-cjk/2012JanMar/0067.html > > > I agree that good layout of double-sided ruby is difficult, but there are > quite a few other layout issues that are difficult to automate, too. Just > because really good layout is difficult shouldn't mean that we don't create > markup. As far as I understand, markup and layout (i.e. styling) are > separate issues when it comes to W3C technology. But should we introduce double-sided HTML ruby just because there are rare examples of double-sided ruby such that automatic layout is doable? Which one listed in http://www.w3.org/International/wiki/Rb#Real_Examples and which one in the Kodansha collection is in the scope? I have seen no discussions about the scope so far. I certainly know markup and styling are separate issues. [snip] >> What is the relationship between ruby and >> annotations? Here is one possibility: ruby is just one way for >> formatting annotations, and we need a generalized mechanism for >> annotation formatting. > > > That's one way of seeing things, and it's not totally wrong. But there are > two problems here: > > 1) The range of annotations is extremely wide. Ruby are very local and > small. Other annotations may be long and far away (e.g. at the end of a > book). It isn't sure at all that the same markup is well suited for all > these cases. Would you think RDF is a good solution for ruby? There is nothing wrong in providing annotations for small text chunk and displaying them as ruby. As for RDF, it may be a W3C's favorite choice, but I am not sure if others are committed to them for identifying text to be annotated. IDPF might use EPUBCFI, http://idpf.org/epub/linking/cfi/epub-cfi.html > > 2) When we worked on the Ruby Annotation REC, Steven Pemberton proposed that > we should generalize the concept (he wasn't speaking about annotations in > general, but glosses). Looking at how far XHTML 2.0 went, I'm glad we > didn't. If <annotation> (or something similar) would already exist, maybe > we'd never had any need to define <ruby> in the first place. But currently, > <annotation> doesn't exist. So I am arguing that the scope of HTML ruby be limited to single-sided ruby and we should address all markup and layout issues around it. Examples of double-sided ruby are rare. Some of them are simply not doable by automatic layout. Others can be better addressed by supporting kanbun kuten. Yet others cause the overlapping ruby-base or concurrent structure problem. > What is there in terms of markup (not layout!) that the ruby proposals > currently floating around wouldn't cover? Ruby for ruby is certainly not covered. Is overlapping ruby base covered? Regards, Makoto
Received on Friday, 24 February 2012 09:58:17 UTC