- From: Robin Berjon <robin@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2013 14:32:52 +0100
- To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- CC: public-i18n-cjk@w3.org
On 14/02/2013 02:02 , fantasai wrote: > On 02/13/2013 05:31 AM, Richard Ishida wrote: >> So presumably if you don't want that for a particular sequence of >> characters you would have to revert to the rb.rt.rb.rt approach, >> ie. the author would have to carefully distinguish between two >> different ways of marking up in order to get the right styling. > > No, this isn't the intent. The intent is to get the inlining > behavior correct for such words and also provide the grouping > information necessary for jukugo styling. And then have a style-level > switch for jukugo styling of the ruby. Whether the default is jukugo > or mono ruby is a separate question... and I think there are good > reasons to make mono ruby the default, one of them being > implementation difficulty. Indeed, that is not at all the intent. And Richard also said: > Essentially, I think that what you are implying here is that use of > the rb.rb.rt.rt approach automatically forces the browser to treat > the ruby as juguko-styled. Again, I wanted to stress that that isn't the case at all. There is no forcing of the browser to go jukugo. What there is is an implied grouping of the bases and their ruby so that it becomes easy to turn on jukugo with just the flick of a CSS switch. Note also that it makes rb.rb.rp.rt.rt.rp possible. -- Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/ - @robinberjon
Received on Tuesday, 19 February 2013 13:33:01 UTC