W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-tt@w3.org > July 2009

RE: Ruby annotation

From: Gur Shlapobersky <Gur@captionsinc.com>
Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2009 08:55:45 -0700
Message-ID: <CD37F561EF61D5439EDB77EBE3D77475011D895F@captions-exch.captionsinc.local>
To: "Glenn Adams" <gadams@xfsi.com>
Cc: <public-tt@w3.org>
Thanks for the explanation. 

Yes, I would like the TTWG to consider adding ruby annotation to the standard. The need for ruby annotations is common in Japanese subtitles and other languages.  

 

Sincerely,

 

Gur S.

 

From: Glenn Adams [mailto:gadams@xfsi.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, July 01, 2009 02:00
To: Gur Shlapobersky
Cc: public-tt@w3.org
Subject: Re: Ruby annotation

 

 

Assuming for a moment (without checking) that you are using the W3C ruby vocabulary as defined by the W3C ruby specification, then, since DFXP permits the arbitrary use of elements and attributes in foreign (i.e., non TT) namespaces, this is certainly legitimate. However, a compliant DFXP processor should be expected to ignore such foreign vocabulary unless the author includes a required extension designator in a profile element, where that extension designator would mandate semantic support for the foreign vocabulary (in this case, the W3C ruby vocabulary).

 

For example, one might have the following:

 

<tt xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2006/10/ttaf1" >

<head>

<profile ttp:xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2006/10/ttaf1" use="dfxp-presentation">

<!-- require support for a "ruby" extension as defined by the following third party -->

<extensions xml:base="http://www.example.org/ttaf1/extension/">

<extension>#ruby</extension>

</extensions>

</profile>

...

</head>

<body>

<div>

<p>

<ruby xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/ruby">

...

</ruby>

</p>

</div>

</body>

</tt>

 

Note well that all extension designations are 3rd party defined and interpreted, and there are no standard extension designations defined (yet) by the TTWG for use with DFXP. Consequently, such a use of ruby is effectively a private extension between two third parties, the author and the processor.

 

While it is possible that the TTWG could define some standard designations for such extensions, we have had no requests to do so. Is that what you are requesting here?

 

Regards,

Glenn

 

On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 2:55 AM, Gur Shlapobersky <Gur@captionsinc.com> wrote:

Is this the proper syntax for ruby annotation as part of a <p> element? 

Should the TT Full profile assume support for ruby annotation?   

 

<p>

  <rub:ruby xmlns:rub="http://www.w3.org/TR/ruby">

    <rub:rb>WWW</rub:rb>

      <rub:rt>World Wide Web</rub:rt>

  </rub:ruby>  

</p>

 

* http://www.w3.org/TR/ruby/


 

Thanks,

 

Gur Shlapobersky

Software Development Manager

 

Captions, Inc.

640 South Glenwood Place.

Burbank, CA 91506

818.260.2722

www.captionsinc.com

 

 

Received on Wednesday, 1 July 2009 15:59:15 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:43:00 UTC