W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-international@w3.org > January to March 2012

Re: HTML5 and ruby

From: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 22:42:50 +0100
To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Cc: public-i18n-cjk@w3.org, 'WWW International' <www-international@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20120118224250467239.b7e79fbc@xn--mlform-iua.no>
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 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 18 January 2012 21:43:29 GMT