Xidorn Quan <quanxunz...@gmail.com>, 2014-12-27 10:12 +1100: > On Sat, Dec 27, 2014 at 12:23 AM, Michael[tm] Smith <m...@w3.org> wrote: ... > > Xidorn Quan <quanxunz...@gmail.com>, 2014-12-26 04:41 -0800: > > ... > > > 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? > > It would be > > <ruby><rb>振<rb>り<rb>仮<rb>名<rt>ふ<rt>り<rt>が<rt>な</ruby> > > The <rt> for "り" here could be individually hidden in ruby form by > stylesheets. In fact, in CSS Ruby, we currently have autohide rule which > automatically hide the the annotation when it is equal to the base.
Thanks, from looking at the current CSS Ruby draft, I see you must mean this: http://drafts.csswg.org/css-ruby/#autohide And maybe I'm missing something but from that I see this autohide thing seems to be magic the UA does without exposing any means for Web content to cleanly override it -- neither through CSS nor script. ("Future levels of CSS Ruby may add controls for auto-hiding, but in this level it is always forced.") If so, I think that kind of thing is something that a lot of web devs has said they'd rather browsers quit doing -- and that most new specs these days seem to try to avoid doing. But again, maybe I'm missing something. But anyway it makes me wonder why it's specced this way to begin with. Other than the case where a base is kana I don't know what other real-world case there might be where an annotation might be equal to its base. Further, I don't know of any typical case where if a base character is kana, why you'd ever want to display furigana/yomigana for it. So as long as the spec is going to require UAs to resort to magic behavior, I think the magic could instead just be "autohide any ruby annotations for kana characters". And then you could just have simpler markup like this: <ruby>振り仮名<rt>ふりがな</rt></ruby> ...and UAs would display as expected -- with no annotation for the り. It doesn't seem like that magic would be any more difficult for UAs to implement and wouldn't be any worse than the "hide the annotation when it is equal to the base" magic the CSS Ruby spec currently requires UAs to do. So anyway, to get back to the "Could you elaborate on why we are using the more complicated W3C rules here instead of the simpler WHATWG rules, given that the WHATWG rules also address the same use cases?" question that Hixie had originally asked at that you responded to in your earlier message at https://lists.mozilla.org/pipermail/dev-platform/2014-December/008123.html ...from the above it seems the base-consisting-of-kanji-mixed-with-kana case may not be such a compelling case for illustrating the need for <rb> to be included in HTML. At least it's not as long as UAs are just doing magic autohiding without exposing any way for Web content to override it. --Mike -- 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
