- From: <noreply@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 08 Dec 2025 05:31:32 +0000
- To: public-transition-announce@w3.org
WD Request for HTML Ruby Markup Extensions - html-ruby-extensions from https://github.com/w3c/transitions/issues/758 This is a request to publish a Working Draft of HTML Ruby Markup Extensions under the i18n Working Group, filed at the suggestion of @plh during TPAC. Before giving the usual minutiae about the document, here's a general intro to why we're proposing to do this, and why we're filing a transition request about that. A few years ago, W3C and the WHATWG reached [an agreement](https://www.w3.org/2022/02/ruby-agreement) that W3C can specify extended HTML Ruby markup under the REC track. This work was chartered into the W3C HTML working group, and a [series of Working Drafts](https://www.w3.org/standards/history/html-ruby-extensions/) were produced. (Potential PRs mentioned in that agreement have not yet been sent to the WHATWG because normative PRs would not be accepted prior to having two browser implementations, and because extensive editorial PRs are both a low priority for the WHATWG, and challenging to do separately from the normative ones. See also https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-i18n-core/2025Nov/0014.html). A round of [horizontal and wide review](https://github.com/w3c/html-ruby/issues/15) was initiated. After some delays caused by intermittent funding for the work, having now addressed the issues that were raised during this review, it would be desirable to publish an updated Working Draft (before starting the work needed to get to and beyond CR, including testing). However, in the meanwhile, the HTML Working Group has gone [out of charter](https://www.w3.org/2022/06/html-wg-charter.html). As it is not evident that it will be rechartered, HTML Ruby Markup Extensions needs a new home. Most expertise in this area at W3C has always been in the Internationalization Working Group, which makes it the prime candidate. A look at [its charter](https://www.w3.org/International/groups/wg/charter) reveals a delicate situation: * The charter is not designed for REC track work, and states so. * However, the charter does include a few Recommendations in its deliverables, for maintenance, including https://www.w3.org/TR/ruby/. Though they differ in the specifics, owing to 20 years of evolution in the technology and in spec writing practices, https://www.w3.org/TR/html-ruby-extensions/ is a descendant of https://www.w3.org/TR/ruby/: it seeks to address the same needs on the basis of the same markup elements. In effect, the new specification aims to be a correction of that old REC, giving HTML (including in its XHTML serialization) a better model of what these elements means and how they are to be used. Importantly, from an IPR point of view, they are the exact same topic, and working on https://www.w3.org/TR/html-ruby-extensions/ would not affect the working group's effective scope. Going forward, the internationalization Working Group intends to tackle REC track work on multiple documents, and does [recognize that it should seek a new charter for doing so](https://www.w3.org/2025/12/04-i18n-minutes.html#91dc). However, if it were possible to proceed with the Ruby Markup work in parallel of the rechartering, that would avoid further delays in this work stream. Given that the i18n Working Group is chartered for maintenance work on ruby markup, and that this would not change its scope from an IPR point of view, it seems plausible that we could. This issue, at @plehegar's suggestion, is filed to ask confirmation over whether that's OK. If approved, the corresponding changes would be landed to the ED and the repository via this PR: https://github.com/w3c/html-ruby/pull/37 # Document title, URLs, estimated publication date HTML Ruby Markup Extensions ED: https://w3c.github.io/html-ruby/ Previous WD: https://www.w3.org/TR/html-ruby-extensions/ Date: as soon a approved # Abstract https://www.w3.org/TR/html-ruby-extensions/#abstract # Status Status in ED: https://w3c.github.io/html-ruby/#sotd Stats in Previous WD: https://www.w3.org/TR/html-ruby-extensions/#sotd # Is it a delta specification intended to become a W3C Recommendation? No, not a delta specification # Link to group's decision to request transition https://www.w3.org/2025/12/04-i18n-minutes.html#900b # IPR commitments The last WD was covered under the Patent Policy as a publication of the HTML Working group. All edits made to the ED since then are editorial. # Issues https://github.com/w3c/html-ruby/issues # Information about implementations known to the Working Group details to be covered by future testing, but at a high level: * Firefox implements all the features covered by the spec * Amazon Kindle implements the rb element and the ability to use it for tabular ruby markup, as described as point 1 of https://w3c.github.io/html-ruby/#diff-html -- This email was generated automatically using https://github.com/w3c/transition-issues-bot
Received on Monday, 8 December 2025 05:31:37 UTC