|From:||taliesin the storyteller <taliesin@...>|
|Date:||Wednesday, July 10, 2002, 14:53|
Oooh! Ruby is cool, I also wish it was better supported. * Paul Bennett said on 2002-07-09 04:44:07 +0200> Quick delurk for a silly question (again).I want to be off-topic and silly too! This deserves its own title, and it wouldn't hurt giving it its own thread. Quiz: When you start a new topic, should you: 1) Hit reply on some other message and type your message all below, thereby not having to enter anything into the 'To:' and/or 'Cc:'- fields and making it much harder to find. 2) Start an entirely new message, thus having to enter something for 'To:' and/or 'Cc:' and even something in 'Subject:', and *then* start typing your message, thus making a new, visible topic in its own, visible, separate thread? And what's with the increase in html-mails already?!> Anyone know of a browser that'll do both Unicode and Rubys?You have of course tried Mozilla and/or Opera already?> MSIE does Unicode real well, but handles Rubys incompetently.For the uninitiated: The "ruby" is the commonly used name for a run of text that appears in the immediate vicinity of another run of text, referred to as the "base", and serves as an annotation or a pronunciation guide associated with that run of text. (Taken from <URL:http://www.w3.org/TR/1998/WD-ruby-19981221/>) See also: <URL:http://www.w3.org/TR/ruby/> The answer is simple: it is, AFAIK, not a part of any of the finished monolithic html recommendations, and ergo not something one has to support... It *is* a part of the internationalization-efforts, which tends to be taken lightly, as it seems that catering to English only is more than good enough :/ Among much else, this is "Microsoft HTML"(tm). Scrolling all the way down on <URL:http://msdn.microsoft.com/workshop/author/dhtml/reference/objects/ruby.asp> you'll find an example. Notice that the <RT>-tag is not closed (= there's no </RT> anywhere.) This makes it invalid xhtml and xml, so the form used on that page will not ever be valid, standardized, good whatever-ml. Don't use it! Specifically, there is no support for ruby in CSS1, but there might be in CSS2, and there definitely will be in CSS3, but: many browsers today has a fairly good coverage of the former, the middle is... somewhat inconsequent and variable, and of course the latter doesn't properly exist yet. t., who did not start a new thread since this is (primarily) an answer.
|H. S. Teoh <hsteoh@...>|