- From: Koji Ishii <kojiishi@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2014 15:24:17 +0900
- To: Xidorn Quan <quanxunzhen@gmail.com>
- Cc: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, kawabata taichi <kawabata.taichi@gmail.com>, "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAN9ydbUMRN0QQNurS4D0We9mpVVRi=M_5Gr2fvi7Kai-T9DYEQ@mail.gmail.com>
On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 5:53 AM, Xidorn Quan <quanxunzhen@gmail.com> wrote: > > I have another suggestion. I found that in all use cases I had seen in > JLREQ and specs, spanning is never directly connected with any previous > separate-paired annotation. Is that make sense to only have span when an > annotation is the only child of a <rtc>? I think that could significantly > reduce the complexity on width calculation (which is the hardest part in my > opinion) and line breaking. In addition, even if we drop spanning > completely, we have to process this level of complexity to support > ruby-merge anyway. > I don't understand what you meant by "connected", but do you mean to allow spanning only when there is only one <rt> child for a <rtc>? If that's the case, I think it's reasonable. If I misunderstood what you meant, can you clarify a bit more? > Another note regarding JLREQ is that, it was said repeatedly so most >> people here might know but, in the policy h of 1.3[2], JLREQ states that >> its coverage is limited to "common books". The term "common books" is not >> clearly defined, but you could read it as "novels". In such "common books", >> not only spanning but also double sided ruby is really really rare, but in >> other markets such as educational materials, double sided ruby is a >> required feature. Another example is use of double quotes; JLREQ states one >> way and the other way is completely wrong and rare, while that the other >> way is the rule for other markets such as closed captions or often used in >> magazines. >> >> What I wanted to say here is that, when you want to determine if a >> feature is common or rare, you should think about which markets you want to >> target to, and depends on that, sometimes JLREQ may not help to determine >> that. The primary purpose of JLREQ is to define rules used in Japanese >> "common books", not to provide data of how common a feature is used in the >> whole Japanese documents. >> > > Thanks for the explanation. I'm sorry that I didn't notice that > limitation. I wonder if there could be more materials about cases other > than "common books". Could you provide some? > Unfortunately, no, as far as I'm aware of. JLREQ derived from the most major editor school, but authors for non-common books tend to be professional and far fewer than common books to establish such schools. /koji
Received on Friday, 14 November 2014 08:40:06 UTC