Should furigana be considered part of "plain text"?

Date: Sat Jul 01 2000 - 22:34:04 EDT

-- - email
(917) 421-3909 x1133 - voicemail/fax

---- John Hudson <> wrote: > At 04:04 AM 7/1/00 -0800, you wrote: > >Furigana codes would simply mark certain text as furigana, meaning > to > >the text-display device, "These characters are not to be displayed > on > >the main line of text, but rather above it and in smaller type". There > >ought to be <furi kana="...."> and </furi> codes, or the equivalent, > >in HTML; at least that is my opinion. The tag <furi kana="...."> would > >indicate the start of the characters that the furigana is to be placed > >over. The input kana="...." would tell the browser what the kana are. > >The </furi> tag would indicate the end of the characters to be given > >furigana. > > I'm presuming, from your description, that Furigana is another term > for > Ruby. There is a <ruby> OpenType layout feature, which will be published > with the next version of the OpenType spec, and this provides font > support > for Ruby/Furigana text. I think it would be the responsibility of > application and markup language developers and standards bodies to > decide > how to tag this kind of text, and obviously such tagging could work > with > the OT feature in line layout and glyph positioning. > > Note that this is a text tagging issue, not a Unicode issue, unless > you > feel that there is some need to indicate Ruby/Furigana in plain text. > At > some point, plain text ceases to be plain if you decide that layout > information needs to be encoded. > > John Hudson > > Tiro Typeworks > Vancouver, BC > >

Anybody willing to comment on this???

___________________________________________________________________ Get your own FREE Bolt Onebox - FREE voicemail, email, and fax, all in one place - sign up at

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:21:05 EDT