Re: Interlinears
| From: | Paul Bennett <paul-bennett@...> |
|---|
| Date: | Thursday, January 5, 2006, 1:00 |
|---|
On Wed, 04 Jan 2006 19:32:10 -0500, Roger Mills <rfmilly@...> wrote:
> Paul Bennett wrote:
>
>> Is there a good way to do interlinears in either MS Word (including
>> Macros) or HTML (e.g. what's Rubi support like these days)? I know LaTeX
>> can do it, but that's one heck of a learning curve just for one feature,
>> and AFAICT Unicode support is pretty spotty, as is non-Unicode IPA
>> support. Kura and Shoebox can do it, too, but again it's a bit of a
>> learning curve.
>>
> Computer Dummy here... what about <pre>, with a fixed-with font; perhaps
> in
> a reduced point-size if it's a long sentence...?
>
> I've seen that recommended, and done (though not by be :-( ); but there
> may
> be fancier ways to do it now, with magical CSS.
I have no idea what CSS can do, other than collecting typestype properties
in one place, instead of having them spread around the document. I suppose
it might help.
The thing with <pre> is that it forces a document width on the reader,
which is bad and wrong. I want something that'll wrap properly, which is
what <ruby> is designed to do. The markup for <ruby> is ugly and wordy,
though, and more importantly there does not seem to have been any real
effort to render it properly in any brower.
> Later on I see you want a six-fold biz. IPA in a fixed-width font might
> not
> be available. A graphic??
Not neccessarily six-fold, but it's plausible. I'm not really a fan of
forcing specific fonts, for all kinds of accessibility reasons (and not
just for disabled people's access).
Right now, my plan is to relearn <ruby> syntax, and try it on the latest
round of browsers, just in case it works.
If it works, I'll plan to write a tutorial on getting it to look right.
Amendment: MSIE fails, though it surprisingly does a better job than
Opera, which is usually red hot on Internationalisation.
Here's the test file I made...
<html>
<head></head>
<body>
This is a test of the display of <ruby><rbc><rb>Ruby</rb>
<rb>text</rb></rbc><rtc class="reading"><rt>Ruby1</rt>
<rt>Ruby2</rt></rtc></ruby>.
</body>
</html>
Does anyone see any obvious defects in the Ruby markup?
Paul
Reply