W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-international@w3.org > October to December 2015

Re: i18n-ISSUE-359: [css-ruby] Drop ruby-merge in favour of a specific jukugo value

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 2015 18:38:14 -0700
Message-ID: <CAAWBYDBW=ixFJHXV1MVMdDbEFS1iKPmKLBZ3_m5ed=v_mSX55Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Cc: Richard Ishida <ishida@w3.org>, W3C Style <www-style@w3.org>, www International <www-international@w3.org>
On Thu, Oct 1, 2015 at 10:36 AM, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net> wrote:
> It's not, see Koji's reply. Jukugo and the sort of collapsing I'm
> describing for Latin phonetics are not the same.
>
> We basically need three values, in order of priority, for ruby-merge:
>
>   1. syllable ruby (don't overlap adjacent bases)
>   2. jukugo ruby (separate if space, allow overlap within word if not)
>   3. word ruby (collapse annotations within a word)
>
> The mapping in the spec is currently
>
>   1. ruby-merge: separate
>   2. ruby-merge: auto
>   3. ruby-merge: collapse
>
> We could use different words to describe these values, and/or rename
> the property, but we have all the definitions needed currently, afaict.

Hmm, I see.  I was under the impression that jukugo was the "word"
mode; I didn't realize it was actually "mono, but allow overlap if
necessary".

I definitely see how the "word" mode is necessary for ruby usage in
any other language.  Different keywords would be good, then, because
"auto" doesn't suggest jukugo.  I'll think on this a bit.

~TJ
Received on Friday, 2 October 2015 01:39:03 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:41:09 UTC