- From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2007 11:15:45 +1300
Henri Sivonen wrote: > > For now, to provoke comments supporting or refuting my totally > uninformed hypothesis, I am assuming that example of the reading not > really being the reading (? vs. ?) as explained at > http://www.w3.org/TR/ruby/#non-visual is not a real problem (see below). > Or at least that leaving the problem unsolved and the default aural > rendering slightly wrong in some cases is better than saying that ruby > cannot have a reasonable default aural rendering at all. Yeah, I'd agree that that's not a real problem. All that paragraph is saying is that you can't just sound out ruby annotations, just like you can't just sound out base text, because kana and bopopmofo are not a linguist's phonetic annotation system, they're writing systems and all that implies. :) ~fantasai
Received on Monday, 8 January 2007 14:15:45 UTC