[rfc-i] v3imp #4 Ruby text

Paul Hoffman paul.hoffman at vpnc.org
Fri Jan 23 09:58:41 PST 2015


On Jan 23, 2015, at 8:39 AM, Tony Hansen <tony at att.com> wrote:
> 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.

Ruby should not be supported except in documents that need to have examples of ruby, which we all hope are extremely rare. Misuse of ruby is much easier than correct use.

--Paul Hoffman


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list