<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>「朱72」　shu72.com &#187; annotation</title>
	<atom:link href="http://shu72.com/tag/annotation/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://shu72.com</link>
	<description>the personal website of Sonya C. Wheeler</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 20 Mar 2012 06:02:39 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	
		<item>
		<title>Browsers need better Ruby markup support</title>
		<link>http://shu72.com/2006/10/13/browsers-need-better-ruby-markup-support/</link>
		<comments>http://shu72.com/2006/10/13/browsers-need-better-ruby-markup-support/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 13 Oct 2006 23:55:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Sonya</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Web Development]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[annotation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[language]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[standards]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[W3C]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://shu72.com/2006/10/13/browsers-need-better-ruby-markup-support/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I&#8217;ll anxiously be awaiting for better ruby annotation support in web browsers (no I&#8217;m not talking about Ruby On Rails). The &#8220;Ruby&#8221; I&#8217;m talking about is found mainly in print. The W3C&#8217;s recommendation article is currently dated from May 31, 2001. Sometimes it does take a while to for things to go from a recommendation [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;ll anxiously be awaiting for better ruby annotation support in web browsers (no I&#8217;m not talking about Ruby On Rails). The &#8220;Ruby&#8221; I&#8217;m talking about  is found mainly in print. The <a href="http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/REC-ruby-20010531/"><acronym title="World Wide Web Consortium">W3C</acronym>&#8217;s recommendation</a> article is currently dated from May 31, 2001. Sometimes it does take a while to for things to go from a recommendation to somewhat supported web standard recommendation. This is how the W3C defines what it is:</p>
<blockquote><p>&#8220;Ruby&#8221; are short runs of text alongside the base text, typically used in East Asian documents to indicate pronunciation or to provide a short annotation. This specification defines markup for ruby, in the form of an <acronym title="Extensible HyperText Markup Language">XHTML</acronym> module.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Here&#8217;s a sample&#8230;<br />
Firefox&#8217;s ruby markup rendering:<br />
<img width="158" height="35" src="http://www.shu72.com/images/rubyanno1fx.jpg" /><br />
Internet Explorer&#8217;s ruby markup rendering:<br />
<img width="85" height="46" src="http://www.shu72.com/images/rubyanno1ie.jpg" /><br />
Here&#8217;s how it should look (ignoring the difference of font and font size):<br />
<img width="82" height="47" src="http://www.shu72.com/images/rubyanno1w3c.jpg" /></p>
<p>So far Firefox (v1.5.0.7) is not rendering it correctly <em>at all</em> and strangely enough Internet Explorer (v6) shows the example correct but still has very little but at least some support. From the examples I tried myself, IE is OK as long as there is only one ruby text tag and one base tag. The main problem for me is that I don&#8217;t use IE on a everyday basis. I&#8217;ve seen ruby markup used in print (dictionaries) but the print world and web world can have vast underlining differences as pointed out in the article.</p>
<blockquote><p class="no-cap">&#8230;the Web may lead to some phenomena and problems that are not present in traditional typography. Structural markup for ruby, as defined in this specification, cannot guarantee that ruby text will always be rendered alongside the base text. There are a very wide variety of current and future output devices for documents marked up with XHTML.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Anyone thinking that the web will cause print to be extinct soon shouldn&#8217;t hold their breath yet.</p>
<p><ins datetime="2007-11-05T19:47:35Z">Update: There is now a .xpi extension available for <a href="https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/1935">XHTML Ruby Support</a> by Hiroshi Shimoda</ins></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://shu72.com/2006/10/13/browsers-need-better-ruby-markup-support/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

