W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > May 2014

[css-ruby] jukugo ruby and interleaved bases

From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Date: Fri, 09 May 2014 12:19:00 -0700
Message-ID: <536D2A24.1090201@inkedblade.net>
To: Taichi KAWABATA <kawabata.taichi@gmail.com>
CC: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>, CJK discussion <public-i18n-cjk@w3.org>
On 01/10/2014 07:36 PM, Taichi KAWABATA wrote:
>fantasai wrote:
>>On 01/09/2014 08:15 AM, Taichi KAWABATA wrote:
>>>
>>> Actually, in HTML5 ruby, ruby-base-container may be split by ruby texts
>>> (e.g. <ruby>A<rt>a</rt>B</rt>b</ruby>)
>>
>> In the current CSS ruby model, this creates two ruby-base-containers,
>> and two ruby-text-containers, each containing one ruby base/text box.
>>
>> To put two ruby bases in a single ruby-base-container, you must place
>> them side by side:
>>
>>    <ruby><rb>A<rb>B<rt>a<rt>b</ruby>
>
> I see. So, in case of Jukugo Ruby interleaved by <rt>/<rb> cases, as
> shown in "Use Case" #4.2
> (http://www.w3.org/TR/ruby-use-cases/#approachc2), Ruby-Text in one Ruby
> Segment may overlap with the adjcent Ruby Segment?

I'm not sure what you're asking. In the case you're pointing at,
in the current CSS spec that would generate effectively three
ruby segments. They do not overlap.

---

It is my understanding that when ruby pairs are allowed to merge
in a jukugo rendering, the correct inline rendering is to place
them together

   abc(ABC)

and not to inline them as

   a(A)b(B)c(C)

If it's the case that we prefer inlining as

   a(A)b(B)c(C)

but *also* allowing that same word as jukugo rendering, then please
tell me so that I can try to make that work.

~fantasai
Received on Friday, 9 May 2014 19:19:35 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:51:26 UTC