RE: Ruby: Requirements and prioritization

I concur with Richard's response, with the additional note (which Richard will not doubt also cover in his response about Bopomofo) that one reason we haven't described how that form of ruby works or is styled is that no one has come forward to provide a model for that form of ruby markup nor is there an implementation to look at. The W3C Internationalization WG is very much interested in seeing zhuyin supported in Ruby, but we need people to provide the necessary expertise. In short term in particular, we would like to ensure that, in our zeal to get full Japanese support, we don't do something that precludes adding such support later.

In other words, this statement of Richard's also applies to the addition or at least consideration of Bopomofo:

> What's needed for
> that, however, is people willing and able to help move the spec forward.  Does
> anyone know of anyone willing to help?

Addison

Addison Phillips
Globalization Architect (Lab126)
Chair (W3C I18N WG)

Internationalization is not a feature.
It is an architecture.



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Richard Ishida [mailto:ishida@w3.org]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2013 8:02 AM
> To: MURATA Makoto
> Cc: fantasai; CJK discussion (public-i18n-cjk@w3.org); 董福興
> Subject: Re: Ruby: Requirements and prioritization
> 
> Apologies for not including Murata-san's text below, but I can't find the original
> email in my mail client for some reason.
> 
> Note that the proposals in the ruby extension for HTML5 introduce
> improvements for single-sided ruby, vis. the rb element and a markup syntax
> that allows for better fallback. The double-sided markup support is just a small
> extension of that basic approach.
> 
> I am hearing from Google Japan that they are seeing requirements for double-
> sided ruby from their users.  I believe that Amazon are also interested in
> getting support.
> 
> Note that the HTML5 ruby extension supports the markup needed for double-
> sided ruby. CSS ruby-position will indeed be needed to move away from the
> *default* positioning of both single- and double-sided ruby, but browsers are
> currently managing to display single-sided ruby correctly without CSS, and
> presumably they could do so in a default fashion for double-sided also while we
> await the completion of the CSS Ruby Module.
> 
> That's not to say that we shouldn't work on the CSS spec. What's needed for
> that, however, is people willing and able to help move the spec forward.  Does
> anyone know of anyone willing to help?
> 
> RI
> 
> 
> PS: I will reply to the bopomofo comments separately.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --
> Richard Ishida
> W3C
> http://rishida.net/

Received on Tuesday, 26 February 2013 16:27:52 UTC