On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 1:16 PM, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net> wrote: > On 11/11/2014 09:01 PM, Xidorn Quan wrote: > >> >> I don't agree with that model as well, but I don't think HTML5 model is >> perfect either. Back to spanning, IMHO, it introduces much complexity >> with nearly no benefits, hence I suggest that we should get rid of it. >> > > The benefit is consistency of the markup model for double-sided ruby, > regardless of whether you need spanning or not. See explanation at: > http://fantasai.inkedblade.net/weblog/2011/ruby/ > > Without it, you'd need to switch between nested ruby or <rtc> markup > depending on whether that particular word in the second level required > spanning or broke at the same boundary as the first level. Do we really have use cases that authors may sometimes need span but sometimes not in the same level? AFAICS, we have two main use cases for double-sided ruby: one is the Japanese two pronouncation case, the other is making annotation in other language. For the first case, kun'yomi always spans the kanjis, while on'yomi are always separate. For the second case, I don't think most languages can be aligned with each other in sub-word level. Hence, it won't cause any inconsistency to require nested markup for spanning. Whether a level needs spanning or not doesn't change among words. - Xidorn
Received on Wednesday, 12 November 2014 03:20:51 UTC