[whatwg] rp is a styling tag and has no semantic function
info at html5.jp
Sat Oct 31 08:50:43 PDT 2009
On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 11:27:26 +0100
Nikita Popov <privat at ni-po.com> wrote:
> > The text without a ruby annotation should not be in <ruby>.
> > It should be marked up like this:
> > <ruby>
> > char <rt>pron 1</rt>
> > another char <rt>pron 2 pron 3</rt>
> > </ruby>
> > and some other text without a ruby annotation.
> Yes, that's right. But there are always people not as strict. I think
> some ninety-nine percent of websites aren't valid an even less semantic.
> HTML5 mustn't be planed only for the exemplary developers but for the
> standard-user, too.
Do you think that HTML5 should support bad markups?
I don't think so.
> Screen-readers are yet another problem: I'm not sure, what's better:
> "ka-n-ka-n-ji-ji" or
> "ka-n-bracketopen-ka-n-bracketclose-ji-bracketopen-ji-bracketclose". I
> think the first one is even better, because the text is only duplicated
> and the reader mustn't read the brackets, too. (This is for
> screen-readers not supporting ruby. The ones that support it can then
> handle it by only reading out the rt, as you proposed. [Though you need
> to consider the problem above.])
This is not a problem.
Of course, the first one is better.
But, the second one is based on markup which is not good.
The markup blow is better, as I mentioned previously.
It will be read "ka-n-ji-bracketopen-ka-n-ji-bracketclose" by screen-readers which don't support <ruby>.
It is not best, but still is understandable.
My solution is progressive enhancement.
Screen-readers which support <ruby> will be able to read "ka-n-ji".
I don't want to say that you should use <rp>.
I think that your solution is also good.
I simply want <rp> not to dropped from HTML5.
It's better that we have alternative markup ways for a ruby.
More information about the whatwg