RE: todo: write mail about pointer attributes at the rubyRule element

Hi Richard, 

We have not thought out the whole thing. But when re-writing the "implementation" sections (describing what exactly each attribute
was doing) we noticed the ruby pointers are very difficult to work with in many cases, especially with complex ruby.

We have not change anything to the current markup or definition or implementation. Just raising a flag about ruby pointer in global
rule (no problem at all with local markup).

Cheers,
-yves



-----Original Message-----
From: public-i18n-its-request@w3.org [mailto:public-i18n-its-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Richard Ishida
Sent: Monday, September 11, 2006 10:56 AM
To: 'Felix Sasaki'; public-i18n-its@w3.org
Subject: RE: todo: write mail about pointer attributes at the rubyRule element


> - 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 17:03:35 UTC