- From: Robin Berjon <robin@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 07 Mar 2013 16:24:03 +0100
- To: "Ishii, Koji a | Koji | BLD" <koji.a.ishii@mail.rakuten.com>
- CC: "Phillips, Addison" <addison@lab126.com>, MURATA Makoto <eb2m-mrt@asahi-net.or.jp>, Richard Ishida <ishida@w3.org>, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, "CJK discussion (public-i18n-cjk@w3.org)" <public-i18n-cjk@w3.org>, 董福興 <bobbytung@wanderer.tw>
Hi, On 04/03/2013 16:24 , Ishii, Koji a | Koji | BLD wrote: > Please count me as well for people who supports the requirement. > > BTW, knowing it’s even rarer, I can’t stop sharing yet another sample of > double-ruby (not double-side ruby): > > https://dl.dropbox.com/u/8812114/scans/ishi/double-ruby.jpg > > This is a scan from a novel, where the hero writes a Kanbun > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kanbun>-style letter to his wife. Note that the current extension specification for ruby actively precludes this by indicating that <ruby> inside <ruby> is meaningless. But if there is implementers' support for this (and if it's possible in the rendering model) then it is a very simple change to make to the proposed extension to make it happen. Basically it just requires *removing* text :) -- Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/ - @robinberjon
Received on Thursday, 7 March 2013 15:24:17 UTC