- From: Richard Ishida <ishida@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2006 17:55:36 +0100
- To: "'Felix Sasaki'" <fsasaki@w3.org>, <public-i18n-its@w3.org>
> - Problem with rpPointer: we need two of them! One for > opening parenthesis, one for closing parenthesis, e.g. > rpOpeningPointer, and rpClosingPointer. Why? Note that rp can contain anything, by the way - doesn't have to be opening and closing pairs. I note that there are only two rps in a ruby element, and that they should surround the rt if they are present - but are we enforcing such rules with its pointers, or simply pointing? RI ============ Richard Ishida Internationalization Lead W3C (World Wide Web Consortium) http://www.w3.org/People/Ishida/ http://www.w3.org/International/ http://people.w3.org/rishida/blog/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/ishida/ > -----Original Message----- > From: public-i18n-its-request@w3.org > [mailto:public-i18n-its-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Felix Sasaki > Sent: 09 September 2006 00:54 > To: public-i18n-its@w3.org > Subject: todo: write mail about pointer attributes at the > rubyRule element > > Hi all, > > Yves and me found some potential issues with the ruby data category: > > > > - General impression: We might need to mark the pointer > attributes (or at least the rbcPointer, rtcPointer and > rbspanPointer attributes) as "features at risk", because they > produce implementation problems (too many useless > combinations of pointer attributes, espc. with complex > ruby) we have not solved, and their need seems to be unclear. > We might keep just the rubyRule element with the selector > attribute and the rubyText element. > > > Cheers, > > Felix > >
Received on Monday, 11 September 2006 16:55:46 UTC