Ruby (was: Scripts)

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.

Reply