Ruby annotation
|
View:
New views
6 Messages
—
Rating Filter:
Alert me
|
 |
Ruby annotation
by Gur Shlapobersky
::
Rate this Message:
Some parts of this message have been removed.
Learn more about Nabble's security policy.
Is this the proper syntax for
ruby annotation as part of a <p> element? Should the TT Full profile assume
support for ruby annotation? <p>
<rub:ruby xmlns:rub="http://www.w3.org/TR/ruby">
<rub:rb>WWW</rub:rb>
<rub:rt>World Wide Web</rub:rt>
</rub:ruby> </p> Thanks, Gur
Shlapobersky Software
Development Manager Captions,
Inc. 640 South Glenwood Place. Burbank, CA 91506 818.260.2722 |
|
|
Re: Ruby annotation
by Glenn Adams
::
Rate this Message:
|
|
|
RE: Ruby annotation
by Gur Shlapobersky
::
Rate this Message:
Some parts of this message have been removed.
Learn more about Nabble's security policy.
Thanks
for the explanation. Yes,
I would like the TTWG to consider adding ruby annotation to the standard. The
need for ruby annotations is common in Japanese subtitles and other
languages. Sincerely, Gur
S. From: Glenn Adams
[mailto:gadams@...] Assuming for a moment (without checking) that you are using
the W3C ruby vocabulary as defined by the W3C ruby specification, then, since
DFXP permits the arbitrary use of elements and attributes in foreign (i.e., non
TT) namespaces, this is certainly legitimate. However, a compliant DFXP
processor should be expected to ignore such foreign vocabulary unless the
author includes a required extension designator in a profile element, where
that extension designator would mandate semantic support for the foreign
vocabulary (in this case, the W3C ruby vocabulary). For example, one might have the following: <tt xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2006/10/ttaf1" > <head> <profile ttp:xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2006/10/ttaf1"
use="dfxp-presentation"> <!-- require support for a "ruby" extension as
defined by the following third party --> <extensions xml:base="http://www.example.org/ttaf1/extension/"> <extension>#ruby</extension> </extensions> </profile> ... </head> <body> <div> <p> <ruby xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/ruby"> ... </ruby> </p> </div> </body> </tt> Note well that all extension designations are 3rd party
defined and interpreted, and there are no standard extension designations
defined (yet) by the TTWG for use with DFXP. Consequently, such a use of ruby
is effectively a private extension between two third parties, the author and
the processor. While it is possible that the TTWG could define some
standard designations for such extensions, we have had no requests to do so. Is
that what you are requesting here? Regards, Glenn On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 2:55 AM, Gur Shlapobersky <Gur@...> wrote: Is this the proper syntax for ruby annotation as part of a <p>
element? Should the TT Full profile assume support for ruby annotation? <p> <rub:ruby
xmlns:rub="http://www.w3.org/TR/ruby">
<rub:rb>WWW</rub:rb>
<rub:rt>World Wide Web</rub:rt> </rub:ruby> </p> Thanks, Gur Shlapobersky Software Development Manager Captions, Inc. 640 South Glenwood Place. Burbank, CA 91506 818.260.2722 |
|
|
RE: Ruby annotation
by Sean Hayes-2
::
Rate this Message:
Some parts of this message have been removed.
Learn more about Nabble's security policy.
The TTWG recognises the importance of Ruby as well as horizontal-in-vertical text and other formatting issues for Asian scripts. We did debate adding direct support for Ruby on a number of occasions, but in the end we took the view that the visual effect of Ruby could be simulated using the existing features of Timed Text, and the semantics could be incorporated using a foreign namespace, thus we decided to not add Ruby markup in a timed text namespace. As Glenn points out, one can include W3C ruby markup in a foreign namespace, but a standard dfxp renderer would not do anything with it. To achieve the semantic notation, and also have the rendering, one could write something like the following: <?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" ?> <tt xml:lang="en" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2006/10/ttaf1" xmlns:tts="http://www.w3.org/2006/10/ttaf1#style" xmlns:ttm="http://www.w3.org/2006/10/ttaf1#metadata"> <head> <metadata> <ttm:title>Ruby Test</ttm:title> <ttm:desc>Example of how to apply ruby</ttm:desc> <ttm:copyright>Copyright (C) 2007 W3C (MIT, ERIM, Keio). All Rights Reserved.</ttm:copyright> </metadata> <styling> <style xml:id="base" tts:color="yellow" tts:fontSize="14px" tts:fontFamily="MS Gothic" tts:textAlign="center" /> <style xml:id="textStyle" style="base" tts:fontSize="32px" /> <style xml:id="rubyStyle" style="base" tts:fontSize="18px" /> </styling> <layout> <region xml:id="r1"> <style tts:origin="0px 30px" /> <style tts:extent="440px 32px" /> <style tts:zIndex="1" /> </region> <region xml:id="r2"> <style tts:origin="80px 12px" /> <style tts:extent="60px 22px" /> <style tts:zIndex="1" /> </region> </layout> </head> <body > <div> <p region="r2" style="rubyStyle">また</p> <p region="r1" style="textStyle">頭を<span> <ruby xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/ruby"> <rb>また</rb> <rt>股</rt> </ruby> </span>股に突つ込んで祈るわ</p> </div> </body> </tt> Which should produce something like:
This approach does have its limitations, and so if Timed Text starts to see a lot of adoption for Asian scripts, then this may well be something we will revisit should we be chartered to look at a version 2. Sean Hayes From: public-tt-request@... [mailto:public-tt-request@...] On Behalf Of Gur Shlapobersky Thanks for the explanation. Yes, I would like the TTWG to consider adding ruby annotation to the standard. The need for ruby annotations is common in Japanese subtitles and other languages. Sincerely, Gur S. From: Glenn Adams [mailto:gadams@...] Assuming for a moment (without checking) that you are using the W3C ruby vocabulary as defined by the W3C ruby specification, then, since DFXP permits the arbitrary use of elements and attributes in foreign (i.e., non TT) namespaces, this is certainly legitimate. However, a compliant DFXP processor should be expected to ignore such foreign vocabulary unless the author includes a required extension designator in a profile element, where that extension designator would mandate semantic support for the foreign vocabulary (in this case, the W3C ruby vocabulary). For example, one might have the following: <tt xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2006/10/ttaf1" > <head> <profile ttp:xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2006/10/ttaf1" use="dfxp-presentation"> <!-- require support for a "ruby" extension as defined by the following third party --> <extensions xml:base="http://www.example.org/ttaf1/extension/"> <extension>#ruby</extension> </extensions> </profile> ... </head> <body> <div> <p> <ruby xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/ruby"> ... </ruby> </p> </div> </body> </tt> Note well that all extension designations are 3rd party defined and interpreted, and there are no standard extension designations defined (yet) by the TTWG for use with DFXP. Consequently, such a use of ruby is effectively a private extension between two third parties, the author and the processor. While it is possible that the TTWG could define some standard designations for such extensions, we have had no requests to do so. Is that what you are requesting here? Regards, Glenn On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 2:55 AM, Gur Shlapobersky <Gur@...> wrote: Is this the proper syntax for ruby annotation as part of a <p> element? Should the TT Full profile assume support for ruby annotation? <p> <rub:ruby xmlns:rub="http://www.w3.org/TR/ruby"> <rub:rb>WWW</rub:rb> <rub:rt>World Wide Web</rub:rt> </rub:ruby> </p> Thanks, Gur Shlapobersky Software Development Manager Captions, Inc. 640 South Glenwood Place. Burbank, CA 91506 818.260.2722 |
|
|
RE: Ruby annotation
by Gur Shlapobersky
::
Rate this Message:
Some parts of this message have been removed.
Learn more about Nabble's security policy.
I
did consider this option but using visual design to create the rubies is not a
perfect solution. Rubies
can move around when the text layout changes. For example, consider a one line
of text that is presented in a window and the last word has a ruby above it. If
the window changes shape and needs to be re-rendered, but this time wrapping
the text into a two line subtitle, the ruby will need to go under the
last word of the second line. Other rules apply when changing horizontal text
to vertical. Applying
the ruby positioning logic by inferring a ruby is a ruby by font-size and
position is not possible. Including
both is possible like you have shown, although we will need to add in the
<ruby> span a reference to the <p> element that it should
substitute. We
will wait to the next version. Gur S. From: Sean Hayes
[mailto:Sean.Hayes@...] The TTWG recognises the importance of Ruby as well as
horizontal-in-vertical text and other formatting issues for Asian scripts. We
did debate adding direct support for Ruby on a number of occasions, but in the
end we took the view that the visual effect of Ruby could be simulated using the
existing features of Timed Text, and the semantics could be incorporated using
a foreign namespace, thus we decided to not add Ruby markup in a timed text
namespace. As Glenn points out, one can include W3C ruby markup in a
foreign namespace, but a standard dfxp renderer would not do anything with it.
To achieve the semantic notation, and also have the rendering, one could write
something like the following: <?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" ?> <tt xml:lang="en" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2006/10/ttaf1" xmlns:tts="http://www.w3.org/2006/10/ttaf1#style" xmlns:ttm="http://www.w3.org/2006/10/ttaf1#metadata"> <head>
<metadata>
<ttm:title>Ruby Test</ttm:title>
<ttm:desc>Example of how to apply ruby</ttm:desc>
<ttm:copyright>Copyright (C) 2007 W3C (MIT,
ERIM, Keio). All Rights Reserved.</ttm:copyright>
</metadata>
<styling>
<style xml:id="base" tts:color="yellow" tts:fontSize="14px" tts:fontFamily="MS Gothic" tts:textAlign="center" />
<style xml:id="textStyle" style="base" tts:fontSize="32px" />
<style xml:id="rubyStyle" style="base" tts:fontSize="18px" />
</styling>
<layout>
<region xml:id="r1">
<style tts:origin="0px 30px" />
<style tts:extent="440px 32px" />
<style tts:zIndex="1" />
</region>
<region xml:id="r2">
<style tts:origin="80px 12px" />
<style tts:extent="60px 22px" />
<style tts:zIndex="1" />
</region>
</layout> </head> <body >
<div>
<p region="r2" style="rubyStyle">また</p>
<p region="r1" style="textStyle">頭を<span>
<ruby xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/ruby">
<rb>また</rb>
<rt>股</rt>
</ruby>
</span>股に突つ込んで祈るわ</p>
</div> </body> </tt> Which should produce something like:
This approach does have its limitations, and so if Timed Text
starts to see a lot of adoption for Asian scripts, then this may well be
something we will revisit should we be chartered to look at a version 2. Sean Hayes From:
public-tt-request@... [mailto:public-tt-request@...] On Behalf Of Gur
Shlapobersky Thanks
for the explanation. Yes,
I would like the TTWG to consider adding ruby annotation to the standard. The
need for ruby annotations is common in Japanese subtitles and other
languages. Sincerely, Gur
S. From: Glenn Adams
[mailto:gadams@...] Assuming for a moment (without checking) that you are using
the W3C ruby vocabulary as defined by the W3C ruby specification, then, since
DFXP permits the arbitrary use of elements and attributes in foreign (i.e., non
TT) namespaces, this is certainly legitimate. However, a compliant DFXP
processor should be expected to ignore such foreign vocabulary unless the
author includes a required extension designator in a profile element, where
that extension designator would mandate semantic support for the foreign
vocabulary (in this case, the W3C ruby vocabulary). For example, one might have the following: <tt xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2006/10/ttaf1" > <head> <profile ttp:xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2006/10/ttaf1"
use="dfxp-presentation"> <!-- require support for a "ruby" extension as
defined by the following third party --> <extensions xml:base="http://www.example.org/ttaf1/extension/"> <extension>#ruby</extension> </extensions> </profile> ... </head> <body> <div> <p> <ruby xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/ruby"> ... </ruby> </p> </div> </body> </tt> Note well that all extension designations are 3rd party
defined and interpreted, and there are no standard extension designations
defined (yet) by the TTWG for use with DFXP. Consequently, such a use of ruby
is effectively a private extension between two third parties, the author and
the processor. While it is possible that the TTWG could define some
standard designations for such extensions, we have had no requests to do so. Is
that what you are requesting here? Regards, Glenn On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 2:55 AM, Gur Shlapobersky <Gur@...> wrote: Is this the proper syntax for ruby annotation as part of a <p>
element? Should the TT Full profile assume support for ruby annotation? <p> <rub:ruby
xmlns:rub="http://www.w3.org/TR/ruby">
<rub:rb>WWW</rub:rb>
<rub:rt>World Wide Web</rub:rt> </rub:ruby> </p> Thanks, Gur Shlapobersky Software Development Manager Captions, Inc. 640 South Glenwood Place. Burbank, CA 91506 818.260.2722 |
|
|
Re: Ruby annotation
by Glenn Adams
::
Rate this Message:
keep in mind that window (i.e., region) sizes cannot change shape in DFXP except under authorial control, e.g., via animation; the same applies regarding changing from horizontal to vertical, this can only be done under authorial control; given this circumstance, the author that is using ruby would alter the position of the ruby region as well;
in any case, I agree that what Sean proposes (and I have also proposed the same previously in the absence of direct support for ruby), is not the best solution, but it is *a* solution that can be used with what is presently defined;
regards, glenn
On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 2:12 PM, Gur Shlapobersky <Gur@...> wrote:
|
| Free embeddable forum powered by Nabble | Forum Help |
