Ruby: Multiple ruby streams in the same orientation

[martindholmes]

It is not uncommon for two distinct ruby streams to appear in the same place relative to the main text--two annotations on the right, for example, as @duncdrum suggests for this:

https://github.com/martindholmes/rubyForTEI/blob/main/Images/Bopomofo.gif

We should specify a recommended encoding strategy for this, either through the use of extra values for @place (right-right, right-right-right), or through the understanding that a sequence of two <rt> elements, both with the same value for @place, are assumed to appear in their document sequence, so the first of two <rb place="right"> elements would appear immediately to the right of the ruby base, and the second would appear to the right of the first.

[knagasaki]

Thanks for the good example, @duncdrum . and for the good suggestion, @martindholmes

In the case of the nested ruby, it can be marked up like below:

      <ruby>
         <rb>
            <ruby>
               <rb>ㄅ</rb>
               <rt place="right">B</rt>
            </ruby>
         </rb>
         <rt place="right">博</rt>
      </ruby>

It seems to be easily understood the relationship of place of both rt.

In the case of non-nested, 'right-right' for @place is so helpful like below:

      <ruby>
         <rb><anchor xml:id="B"/>ㄅ<anchor  xml:id="owari"/></rb>
         <rt place="right" from="#B" to="#owari">B</rt>
         <rt place="right-right" from="#B" to="#owari">博</rt>
      </ruby>

      <ruby>
         <rb><c xml:id="B">ㄅ</c></rb>
         <rt place="right" target="#B">B</rt>
         <rt place="right-right" target="#B">博</rt>
      </ruby>

[martindholmes]

@MegJBrown, @martinascholger, @hcayless and I have some questions on this:

1. With nested rubys, the structure appears to us to suggest that the second rt is glossing both the rb and the rt before it. Is this true?
2. With non-nested rubys, would it be correct to say that the rts might be columnar? In other words, might there be a "right-right" rt which lines up with other right-rights before it, but doesn't have a preceding "right" rt?
3. Can we have a clearer explanation of what exactly is happening in the example image? What are the two rts doing?

@knagasaki and @duncrum, what do you think?

[knagasaki]

@martindholmes I'm sorry that the doubled <rt> in the non-nexted examples above would be my mistake. I revised both examples.

[kzhr]

IMHO, 1 should be yes; encoders should understand what these rt are added to, and should refrain using nested approach if they are not confident with their understanding of the structure.

For 2, I haven't seen such a example, but it's not impossible how long unlikely it to be exist.

For 3, are you talking about that bopomofo example? In my view, these rts independently annotate readings of a corresponding rb. So, this example should be encoded in the parallel approach.

The nested approach, I think, should be taken if there is a difference between the closeness of rt and rb; if one rt is more closely connected with rb, say a literal reading of the rb, than the other rt whose content is, say, a translation of the rb.

[raffazizzi]

At April 2022 VF2F council proposes to go with @knagasaki 's example for the nested approach. For the non-nested, council favors @martindholmes 's second suggestion:

the understanding that a sequence of two <rt> elements, both with the same value for @place, are assumed to appear in their document sequence, so the first of two <rb place="right"> elements would appear immediately to the right of the ruby base, and the second would appear to the right of the first.

So:

      <ruby>
         <rb><anchor xml:id="B"/>ㄅ<anchor  xml:id="owari"/></rb>
         <rt place="right" from="#B" to="#owari">B</rt>
         <rt place="right" from="#B" to="#owari">博</rt>
      </ruby>

Council thinks @place value and sequence are adequate to encode and process the example above, and this approach has the added advantage of not requiring to extend the list of values for @place.

If there are any objections please respond below.

[martinascholger]

I would add the two examples to the Core module, after this example: https://tei-c.org/release/doc/tei-p5-doc/en/html/CO.html#index-egXML-d52e31892 @kzhr, @knagasaki, @martindholmes do you agree?

[martindholmes]

@martinascholger That makes good sense to me. And I'm just off to fix that typo "lanuages". :-)

[kzhr]

It's fine for me, too. Thanks!

[martinascholger]

If I understand @kzhr's comment correctly, the bopomofo example should be encoded using the parallel approach and not with the nested approach. This would mean that we need another example for the nested approach, right?

For 3, are you talking about that bopomofo example? In my view, these rts independently annotate readings of a corresponding rb. So, this example should be encoded in the parallel approach.

[martinascholger]

In the Council meeting today we agreed that the anchors should be removed in the example demonstrating the parallel approach and that the nested example should be implemented as suggested by @knagasaki.