Bug 21041 - Inlining ruby
Inlining ruby
Status: NEW
Product: HTML WG
Classification: Unclassified
Component: HTML5 spec
unspecified
Other other
: P3 normal
: ---
Assigned To: Robin Berjon
HTML WG Bugzilla archive list
http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/...
:
Depends on: 20114
Blocks:
  Show dependency treegraph
 
Reported: 2013-02-18 14:58 UTC by Robin Berjon
Modified: 2013-02-26 22:11 UTC (History)
8 users (show)

See Also:


Attachments

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description Robin Berjon 2013-02-18 14:58:13 UTC
+++ This bug was initially created as a clone of Bug #20114 +++

From: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-whatwg-archive/2012Nov/0370.html


The current ruby model explicitly uses a "column-based" model of ruby,
where runs of base text and ruby text must alternate in the markup, so
that ruby text is associated with the immediately preceding ruby base.

This does *not* work well for common ruby inlining cases.  For
example, the word Tokyo is written as 東京 in kanji and とうきょう in kana.
The base-text pairs are 東-とう 京-きょう, and the ruby markup must create
those associations accordingly. However, when rendered inline, the
correct rendering is 東京(とうきょう) with the word kept together as one
unit, not 東(とう)京(きょう).  The current ruby model in HTML, though,
requires that you either mark up the ruby correctly and get the latter
display, or incorrectly group the entire thing as one ruby text over
one ruby base to get the former display.

This is important, because inlining is not just a fallback measure for
down-level clients.  Inlining is often done as a legitimate stylistic
choice, such as when there's only a small amount of ruby in the text
(to avoid the increased line-height on the few lines that contain
ruby) or when the base text is already small (to avoid making the ruby
text unreadably small).

This can be solved easily by also allowing a "row-based" model, where
runs of <rb> elements can be followed by runs of <rt> elements, and
they're matched up index-wise.  If you can then switch back to <rb>,
you still retain the convenience of "column-based" when that's
sufficient.