- From: kawabata taichi <kawabata.taichi@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 12 May 2014 18:05:55 +0900
- To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Cc: Koji Ishii <kojiishi@gluesoft.co.jp>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>, "public-i18n-cjk@w3.org" <public-i18n-cjk@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CA+PRW99FMH6v9-U0Mp2a1cztQ18G9sBjqxf3T1GHwnAYY2ODww@mail.gmail.com>
Dear fantasai, Could you take a look at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2014Mar/0392.html and give me a feedback? Current my idea is to define pairing of ruby loosely in HTML5, and strictly in "CSS Ruby". To minimize the risk of removal of new Ruby model in current HTML5 CR, and also to minimize the potential divergence between HTML and CSS Ruby Specs, I think strict algorithm should appear in CSS, but not in HTML5. Strict implementation of Segmentation and Categorisation of Ruby is not necessary in HTML5 if <rp> is fully utilized and <rb> and <rt> text inline elements are lined as is. What I mean for "loose definition" is something like "a consecutive sequence of <rb> elements consists a base part of ruby, and the following consecutive <rt> or <rtc> elements are corresponding text part(s) of ruby of preceding sequence of <rb> elements". Please let me know if anyone is interested in discussion of this issue. Currently, I'm planning off-line meeting to be held in Friday of this week. With best regards, On Sat, May 10, 2014 at 3:55 AM, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>wrote: > FWIW, I agree with Kawabata-san that the pairing of ruby should be > defined in both specs. CSS needs to define it for layout purposes, > even if the markup is not <ruby> markup. HTML needs to define it > for semantic purposes, even if CSS is not used. Speech for example > is a rendering of HTML ruby markup that does not use CSS layout. > > Yes, this creates the potential for divergence between the HTML > and CSS specs. The editors of these specs must be diligent to > prevent that from happening. But also, if the specs diverge it > means that there is something to look at more closely, since at > least one of them is not correct. Therefore writing the pairing > algorithm twice can be a benefit, and hopefully implementors > will help us to notice any such discrepencies and fix them. > > ~fantasai > -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- 川幡 太一 (KAWABATA, Taichi) E-mail: kawabata.taichi@gmail.com
Received on Monday, 12 May 2014 09:06:25 UTC