Re: Ruby: Requirements and prioritization

Phillips,

I think that we need a list of missing features as well as
priorities.  In my first mail, I gave a pointer to a list
of requested features from Japanese publishers.  About 20
of them are about ruby.  They have also indicated priorities
of each feature.  For example, group ruby has 2.7,
Nakatsuki ruby (centering ruby with respect to the center of
each base character) has 1.5.   Ruby under the base has
1.0.  Wari ruby (or ruby as warichuu) has 0.8.

I e-mailed Taiwanese about writing down some Bopomofo
ruby requirement document.  I will e-mail the association
of the Japanese publishers today.

Regards,
Makoto

2013/2/28 Phillips, Addison <addison@lab126.com>:
> Hello Murata-san,
>
>
>
> I don’t see Bopomofo ruby as being in “competition” with efforts towards
> improving single- or double-sided ruby support for Japanese. Work on
> Japanese-related ruby styles does not exclude or say anything about the
> relative priority of Bopomofo ruby.
>
>
>
> I think that Bopomofo ruby is important. As Richard noted before, we really
> need several things to make progress on Bopomofo ruby.
>
>
>
> First, we lack complete and authoritative requirements in English for how
> Bopomofo ruby should work―what the character positioning is, how it works
> with vertical text, how the ruby text is associated with base characters,
> what exceptions or stylistic variations there may be, and so forth. I think
> Richard has documented some of this, but we don’t have the expertise in the
> group at the moment to know if what we have is accurate or complete.
>
>
>
> The other thing, once we have requirements, would be to make browser vendors
> aware of the need. I think the working group has some ideas for how to raise
> awareness, once we are in a position to answer their questions about how it
> should work.
>
>
>
> Perhaps the best next step would be for the user community to mobilize
> support for this work, maybe by inviting experts who understand Bopomofo
> ruby to produce a requirements document. The Internationalization WG would
> certainly welcome publishing these materials and could supply support in
> various forms for this work to progress.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
>
> Addison
>
>
>
> Addison Phillips
>
> Globalization Architect (Lab126)
>
> Chair (W3C I18N WG)
>
>
>
> Internationalization is not a feature.
>
> It is an architecture.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> From: eb2mmrt@gmail.com [mailto:eb2mmrt@gmail.com] On Behalf Of MURATA
> Makoto
> Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2013 11:01 PM
> To: Ishii, Koji a | Koji | BLD
> Cc: MURATA Makoto; Richard Ishida; fantasai; CJK discussion
> (public-i18n-cjk@w3.org); 董福興
>
>
> Subject: Re: Ruby: Requirements and prioritization
>
>
>
> That's why the title if this mail contains "prioritarization'.
>
> Which feature is critical and urgent?  Standardization without
>
> appropriate prioritization is unlikely to address market
>
> needs.
>
>
>
> I guess that bopomofo ruby is more urgent and more
>
> important than anything else about ruby.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Makoto
>
>
> 2013年2月27日水曜日 Ishii, Koji a | Koji | BLD koji.a.ishii@mail.rakuten.com:
>
>> > 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.
>>
>> I am wondering if they have written down requirements.
>
> Let's stop discussing on whether double-sided ruby is required or not. The
> fact is that, it is required for some people. Not needed at all for others.
> So such two parties would never agree whether it's needed or not.
>
> The feature should be designed to make it optional for people who doesn't
> need it, and if you don't need it, the feature does nothing bad to you.
>
> /koji
>
>
>
> --
>
> Praying for the victims of the Japan Tohoku earthquake
>
> Makoto



-- 

Praying for the victims of the Japan Tohoku earthquake

Makoto

Received on Thursday, 28 February 2013 00:05:33 UTC