Re: HTML5 and ruby

fantasai, Wed, 18 Jan 2012 08:30:47 -0800:
> On 01/12/2012 07:53 AM, Richard Ishida wrote:

> I think the inclusion of <rb> allows solving all the use cases in
> a consistent and extendable way, whereas the other options given
> only solve some of the use cases in a haphazard way. For example,
> you use <span> for styling bases, double <rt> if you have certain
> kinds of double ruby, double <ruby> if you have other kinds of
> double ruby, and the fallback and inlining use cases remain
> unsolved. I don't see any reasonable objections to using <rb>, so
> I don't understand why HTML needs to go to such great lengths to
> avoid using it.

+1 But I wonder if you have an opinion on the following: HTML5 allows 
us to split up a base word, making difficult to perceive as we a word. 
For example, to mark up 'WWW' as follows would prevent e.g. a spell 
checker from perceiving the acronym 'WWW':


Whereas in the XHTML Ruby module, then one would have had to do this:


Or, of course, one could do this:

  <rt>World Wide Web</rt>

The XHTML Ruby module thus allows spell checkers and screen readers to 
perceive base word[s] without having to behave as if the <rt> did not 
exist. This seems like a feature from the XHTML RUby module that it 
would be worth keeping.

Leif Halvard Silli

Received on Wednesday, 18 January 2012 21:43:27 UTC