- From: Xidorn Quan <quanxunzhen@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2015 14:15:06 +1100
- To: John Daggett <jdaggett@mozilla.com>
- Cc: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>, Bobby Tung <bobbytung@wanderer.tw>
- Message-ID: <CAMdq699SeXEbCyWZPiYSM6d02t2S1okg3xofTPj6Emeq5JaAYg@mail.gmail.com>
On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 1:13 PM, John Daggett <jdaggett@mozilla.com> wrote: > Xidorn Quan wrote: > > > OK, then, let's add a keyword for 'font-size', say 'ruby-text', and > > make it be computed according to ruby-position. It is computed to 30% > > when ruby-position is inter-character, and 50% otherwise. > > Adding keyword values like this to 'font-size' affects the parsing of > the 'font' shorthand so it's a fairly large impact change. > Hmm, but we have had several keyword values for font-size, and the 'font' shorthand has a relatively strict syntax requirement, which actually allows us to introduce any type of single value for font-size without causing ambiguity. > The default > stylesheet font-size settings for ruby elements should cover the > majority of use cases. How frequently do you expect 'inter-character' > will be used in practice? The ruby spec describes it as something > that's a special case. > Less frequently than ruby in Japanese, I guess. Maybe Bobby can answer this question. > I'm also suspicious that as to how "fixed" the > percentages you've listed above actually are, especially across common > use cases in Japan, Taiwan and China. If the common usage is slightly > different in Taiwan vs. Japan for example then I think the fixed > nature of 'ruby-text' won't be a win. > > I should also point out that house rules for typesetting like this > often vary. The CLReq or the Taiwanese manual you linked to may state > a single value but I suspect that's not written in stone and > publishers would vary it based on context (e.g. larger ruby sizing for > text aimed at younger children). > I don't think Taiwan publishers would often enlarge the size because that would cause the annotation exceed the boundary of one character, which I think rarely happens. But it makes me wonder whether ruby-text should be computed according to ruby-position. It's probably true that inter-character will only be used in Taiwan, however it is not true that Taiwan people only use inter-character. They may use other values as well, and in those cases, the font-size should also be 30%, because it is the usual font-size for bopomofo. Maybe the best way is not introducing a new keyword, but specifying a locale-dependent default stylesheet. > The other issue is that on the web, sizing rules like this are > distorted because of the discrete nature of smaller sizes for text > displayed on screens. Where in printing a consistent ratio of text > size to ruby size might be used, for screens it's common to bump up > the relative ratio at smaller sizes. This is how superscripts and > subscripts are displayed in HTML for example. > It might be an existing problem for the current spec. I don't think adding the new keyword would make anything worse on this. - Xidorn
Received on Tuesday, 27 January 2015 03:16:15 UTC