On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 11:10:59 +0100 Nikita Popov <pri...@ni-po.com> wrote:
> Futomi Hatano schrieb: > > If ATs(e.g. screen reader) know the rp element, it can remove the content > > of the rp element. > > So, we can get only true annotations from ATs, without parentheses. > > I don't want hear parentheses from a screen reader. > > > > I hope that all browsers (including ATs) support the ruby element. > > If so, I think the rp element is not necessary. > > > > Thank you. > > > > -- > > Futomi Hatano > > www.html5.jp > > > > I think this element is necessary in the HTML5 spec. > Talking about screen-readers: How should a screen-reader actually handle > ruby annotations? In this case > <ruby> > 漢 <rt> かん </rt> > 字 <rt> じ </rt> > </ruby> > it would be quite strange if a screen-reader read the annotations, > because they have the same content as the ruby base text. (I hope this > is correct. I don't know the Japanese language, but I understood it as > 漢 beeing same as かん only in a different "way" of writing.) So the > reader must not read the annotation. More correctly, screen-readers should read only the contents of <rt> rather than the base text. That is, screen-readers are expected to read it as "ka-n-ji" from <rt>s. Of course, screen-readers which don't support <ruby> repeat 2 times such like "ka-n-ka-n-ji-ji" as you know. We also have to get <ruby> easy to read for visual browser users. But, the markup above is rendered by non-IE browsers as below. 漢かん字じ We feel it is odd. So, I want to mark it up like this. <ruby>漢字<rp>(</rp><rt>かんじ</rt><rp>)</rp></ruby> This markup is rendered by non-IE browsers as below. 漢字(かんじ) It's natural and easy to understand. Screen-readers which supports <ruby> of HTML5 are expected to ignore <rp>, and read only the contents of <rt>. Users who use such a screen-reader will hear "ka-n-ji" only once. I think that both of screen reeder users and visual browser users would be happy. If <rp> is dropped from the spec, screen-readers could't ignore parentheses without fail. So, I think that <rp> is necessary. > In an example i got from an older W3C spec, it's different: Are you talking about "Ruby Annotation module for XHTML 1.1"? http://www.w3.org/TR/ruby/ > > <ruby> > <rbc> > <rb>10</rb> > <rb>31</rb> > <rb>2002</rb> > </rbc> > <rtc> > <rt>Month</rt> > <rt>Day</rt> > <rt>Year</rt> > </rtc> > <rtc> > <rt rbspan="3">Expiration Date</rt> > </rtc> > </ruby> > > As this markup isn't used anymore with HTML5, here's how it would be > (dropping the "expiration date"): > <ruby> > 10 <rt>Month</rt> > 31 <rt>Day</rt> > 2002 <rt>Year</rt> > </ruby> > This one now should be read out by the screen-reader. Otherwise the > meaning of the numbers may be not as clear. > > (Or is the date-example out-of-date and ruby shouldn't be used there?) I think that <ruby> of HTML5 is not appropriate for the case. According to the HTML5 spec, <ruby> is "primarily used in East Asian typography as a guide for pronunciation or to include other annotations". I think that this element was not designed for the case you mentioned. "Ruby Annotation module for XHTML 1.1" can be used for a broad range of objectives. But <ruby> of HTML5 is limited, I think. Thank you for your time. -- Futomi Hatano www.html5.jp
