[rfc-i] v3imp #4 Ruby text

Tony Hansen tony at att.com
Fri Jan 23 08:39:30 PST 2015


to the design team:

On 1/23/15 4:04 AM, Sean Leonard wrote:
> Improvement Need
> #4 Ruby text
>
> This improvement calls for support for ruby text, also known as 
> interlinear annotation. If you are not familiar, check out 
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruby_character>.
>
> Support can be in markup form {<ruby> <rt> <rp> -- see HTML5} or by 
> supporting the raw Unicode code points {U+FFF9 U+FFFA U+FFFB}.
>
> Personally I think the Unicode code points are sufficient for the 
> canonical format; a formatter can convert these codes into appropriate 
> markup (e.g., HTML5 <ruby>). However as our own Martin J. Dürst is the 
> co-author of UTR-20 
> <http://www.unicode.org/reports/tr20/#Interlinear>, the markup 
> position may win out.
>
> My biggest concern is that introducing <ruby> markup into the v3 
> format may significantly complicate canonical processing, since 
> interlinear annotation is applicable to structured text fields (e.g., 
> author names, document title, references), not just unstructured 
> spec-text. HTML5 really goes quite overboard with the ruby elements; I 
> believe it is unreasonable to require support for that level of 
> complexity from all xml2rfc-related tools. Furthermore, putting ruby 
> into artwork *should* be allowed—this requires no additional work for 
> the v3 vocabulary since the Unicode code points are already allocated.

Since V3 is Unicode-based, and Unicode is allowed in all the places Sean 
seems to be concerned about, I think this is covered. This only thing 
I'm not sure about is the use of ruby in artwork -- would that just be 
ruby annotations on words found within the artwork, or is Sean thinking 
it would be used in another fashion? If the former, I think it's okay.

The only real question I have is whether there needs to be an explicit 
statement about ruby being supported or not.

     Tony Hansen


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list