- From: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
- Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2012 04:51:55 +0100
- To: Roland Steiner <rolandsteiner@google.com>
- Cc: Koji Ishii <kojiishi@gluesoft.co.jp>, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, "public-i18n-cjk@w3.org" <public-i18n-cjk@w3.org>
Roland Steiner, Thu, 23 Feb 2012 11:55:15 +0900: > With "current standard" I referred to the HTML5 spec, OK. Then we agree: HTML5 has a column-major model. > which essentially encodes IE's implementation, and which in turn is > followed by WebKit's implementation: > > <ruby>base1<rt>text1</rt>base2<rt>text2</rt>base3<rt>text3</rt></ruby> > > i.e., column-major, without <rb>, <rbc>, <rtc>. (<rp> is supported, > but omitted for simplicity.) Actually, Webkit and IE has several differences. > I fail to see how this can be construed as having "some support for > both models". Do a comparison of how IE and Webkit handles row-major, and you will see what I mean: * IE handles row-major [yes it does] * Since IE9, <rtc> can be used If you use HTML5 shiv, you can use it in IE6-8 too * IE — at least until IE9 - does not auto-close any elements when it sees <rt>. [Well, there is one element that makes it auto close, and that is if you place a <ruby> inside a <ruby> - that's like trying to place a <p> inside a <p>.] I demo all this - except the auto-closing of <ruby> inside <ruby> - here: http://software.hixie.ch/utilities/js/live-dom-viewer/saved/1348 Leif Halvard Silli > On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 11:42, Leif Halvard Silli wrote: >> Roland Steiner, Thu, 23 Feb 2012 11:02:18 +0900: >>> On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 07:24, Leif Halvard Silli wrote: >>>> 1. Are there anyone - apart from Ian - with a stake in this, that argue >>>> that it should be column-major? >>> >>> The current standard and implementations are column-major. >> >> You mix it up, I think. If we take specs firsts, then according the >> letter from Koji that started this thread,[1] then [ignoring <rtc> and >> <rbc>] this is the XHTML Ruby module' model — 'row-major': >> >> <ruby><rb/><rb/><rb/> >> <rt/><rt/><rt/><ruby> >> >> While this is the model that Ian placed in HTML5 — 'column-major': >> >> <ruby><rb/><rt/><rb/> >> <rt/><rb/><rt/></ruby> >> >> If we look at implementations, as long as we with 'support' have visual >> display in mind, then IE and Webkit appears to have some support for >> both models. [But if we consider what they present to find-in-page, >> screen readers or present as fallback with CSS disabled, then they only >> support row-major.] >> >> Koji's description of 'row-major': '"row-major" approach; split first >> by rows and then by columns.' >> >>>> 2. Do we agree that column-major - what is in HTML5 now - should be >>>> non-conforming? >>> >>> I don't think that's an option as it would break existing pages. A >>> solution should have graceful fallback to both the current standard >>> as well as to no <ruby> support. >> >> I believe, when you said 'column-major', your really meant 'row-major', >> not? And if so, then we can conclude, that so far, everyone in this >> group is in favor of row-major. >> >> The question I am still uncertain of, though, is whether anyone thing >> that HTML5's column-major needs to remain conforming. My opinion about >> that is negative - it need not and should not. >> >> [1] >> http://www.w3.org/mid/A592E245B36A8949BDB0A302B375FB4E0D334EFCD6@MAILR001.mail.lan >> -- >> Leif Halvard Silli >
Received on Thursday, 23 February 2012 03:52:28 UTC