Hi Xidorn, Xidorn Quan <quanxunz...@gmail.com>, 2014-12-26 04:41 -0800: ... > If you want the word "明朝体" to be marked in ruby in separate form, with > the WHATWG rules, you must write it as: > > <ruby>明<rt>みん</rt>朝<rt>ちょう</rt>体<rt>たい</rt></ruby> > > It is incompatible with the inline form, which means, if an author wants > to switch between the inline form and ruby, there are only two options: > 1. provide a different document for each form; 2. drop the separate form > and use only the collapsed form for ruby. Neither of them perfectly > matches the requirement. But with the W3C rules, it can be written as: > > <ruby><rb>明<rb>朝<rb>体<rp>（<rt>みん<rt>ちょう<rt>たい<rp>）</ruby> > > which is obviously compatible with the inline form. > > The difference in expression ability becomes more important when there > are words mixed with kanji and kana, such as "振り仮名". For this word, > you won't even have the second option above, because I don't think people > want to write something like > > <ruby>振り仮名<rt>ふりがな</rt></ruby>
What would be the right way to mark that up with <rb>? In particular, what would be the right way if the authors wants to switch between the inline form and ruby? --Mike > In conclusion, I think the WHATWG rules are not flexible enough for > multi-pair rubies, which limits both the semantization and the > stylability of documents. In other words, I don't think the two rule sets > address the same use cases, especially in perspective of semantics. The > W3C rules are much more powerful, though also more complicated, than the > WHATWG rules. -- Michael[tm] Smith https://people.w3.org/mike
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
