Proposed Corrections for Requirements for Japanese Text Layout

Reviewing the document again for the purposes of XSL FO, I already knew there were three types of ruby -- mono-ruby, jukugo-ruby, and group-ruby -- but I had trouble finding the definition of group-ruby.

It may be better if the three types of ruby were each defined in a separate subsection of Section 3.3.1, "Usage of Ruby". Headings would make the definitions easier to identify, rather than reading through most of a paragraph to find the term "group-ruby" (and the background highlight of the term doesn't show up when the document is printed).

Another way that I confused myself is that the types are defined in the order mono-ruby, jukugo-ruby, then group-ruby, but are then discussed in the following sections in the order mono-ruby, group-ruby, then jukugo-ruby.

Lastly, the "note 5" about the reading of a kanji compound word was initially confusing to me because it likened it to "attaching ruby in katakana to kanji and/or kana base characters", but that hadn't been covered at that point. After reading the note twice, I had to give up and go on to the next point, which of course was about attaching ruby in katakana to kanji and/or kana base characters. It may help if the note also used the term "group-ruby" and/or had a cross-reference to the definition of attaching ruby in katakana to kanji and/or kana base characters.

2. Should the first 'another word' be 'word'? Should both of them?

1. Would it be useful to also mention dictionaries or educational meterials as examples of where small kana would be used in ruby annotation?

2. Would it be useful to include a figure contrasting the use and non-use of small-kana in ruby, e.g., a variant of fig. 109?

The term "kana", meaning both hiragana and katakana, is not defined in the document, though it is used in several places, including a section title.

FWIW, the connection between "ideographic" and "kanji" is also not defined, and a reader who did not already know would have to work it out from Fig. 1 and Section 2.1.2.

FWIW, Fig. 129 [2] hyphenates the compounds "nakatsuki-ruby" and "katatsuki-ruby" (and places the horizontal example below the vertical).

"adjacent" appears to be used in two senses when describing ruby.

Section 3.3.5 contains:

For mono-ruby, base characters and adjacent ruby characters are handled as one object

Section 3.3.6 contains:

inter-character space between each adjacent ruby character

inter-character space between each adjacent ruby characters

inter-character space between each adjacent base character (x2)

For group-ruby, base characters and adjacent ruby characters are handled as one object, and internal line-breaks are prohibited. Also, for an object constructed with base characters and adjacent ruby characters it is prohibited to insert additional spaces between each character for line adjustment.

Section 3.3.7 contains:

type of script of the adjacent characters

Section 3.3.8 contains:

spacing between base characters and their adjacent characters in the main text

It seems to me that sequential characters are being described as adjacent and that base and ruby characters are also being described as adjacent. Would it be better to use a different word for one of these two cases?

This is probably similar to my earlier confusion about mono-ruby with more than three ruby characters [1].

The second paragraph of Section 3.3.7, "Positioning of Jukugo-ruby with Respect to Base Characters", begins:

If there is any kanji character in a given kanji compound word which needs more than three ruby characters, the jukugo-ruby layout cannot be used.

However, the alternative methods in Fig. 130 and Fig. 131 are both described as jukugo-ruby and both show three or fewer ruby characters per kanji.

1. Should "jukugo-ruby" in the first sentence be "mono-ruby"?

2. It's not clear to me whether the examples in Fig. 131 are correct for both nakatsuki-ruby and katatsuki-ruby or whether only katatsuki-ruby is being illustrated in this figure.

3. Who or what decides whether the maximum overhang over another base character is either a full character width or one and a half times the full-width of a ruby character?

The paragraph before Fig. 197 [1] describes the single figure as "are examples with the same jukugo-ruby as in [Fig.195] and [Fig.195] ..."

The figure shows the same jukugo-ruby as Fig. 195 and Fig. 196. The text should be corrected.

In the last list in Section 3.3.8, "Adjustments of Ruby with Length Longer than that of the Base Characters", [1]:

- Item "e" covers "Jukugo-ruby at the line head or at the line end", but item "f" covers "Jukugo-ruby at the line head" and item "g" covers "Jukugo-ruby at the line end". Is this overlap correct?

- Note 2, following the list, includes:

The handling and positioning of these complexes with adjacent characters is discussed in Appendix F Positioning of Jukugo-ruby as a complete table, following 3.9 About Character Classes.

Appendix F is more than just a table, and there are sections and other appendices between Section 3.9 and Appendix F.