Remove some checkme in pinyin sections #263
Conversation
index.html
Outdated
| <p its-locale-filter-list="zh-hant" lang="zh-hant">正文与标音双方皆分词连写。相邻基文之间有约1/2em的空格隔开，基文内部字距通常正常。</p> | ||
| </li> | ||
| <li id="id151"> | ||
| <p its-locale-filter-list="en" lang="en">Many word-based annotations indicate the logic of the whole sentence, rather than merely the pronunciation: these phonetic annotations have sentence case, as well as punctuation marks which follow the previous annotations.</p> | ||
| <p its-locale-filter-list="zh-hans" lang="zh-hans" class="checkme">许多分词连写标音用例体现出对整个句子标音的逻辑，而非简单对词语标音：注文有句首大写、专名首字母大写。有标点，标点跟随左侧（前方）注文。</p> | ||
| <p its-locale-filter-list="en" lang="en">Many word-based annotations indicate the logic of the whole sentence, rather than merely the pronunciation: these phonetic annotations have capitalized sentences and capitalized proper names. Punctuations follow the previous annotation text.</p> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm not sure what "Punctuations follow the previous annotation text." means. Note btw, that it should read "Punctuation follows...".
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It means the punctuation immediately follows the ruby text.
For example, it should be:
instead of something like the following:
There was a problem hiding this comment.
That's much clearer now. I strongly recommend including the top image as a figure, and saying something like "Punctuation may also be included in these annotations, but is kept with a preceding annotation, as shown in Fig XX, and doesn't appear over the punctuation in the base text."
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I just pushed a commit to clarify this point.
|
I would have suggested using the first line of w3c/type-samples#94 instead as the example, since it includes both a comma and a question mark (and even a colon too, if you extend to the beginnign of the line). However, the examples on that picture extend the annotations to cover the punctuation of the base text too - which i think clreq says shouldn't happen... |
Perhaps I'm missing something, but I don't think it is in contradiction with clreq... |
|
See 3.3.4.2 Characters as the Basic Units for Annotating Pronunciation
|
|
And note how in your original example, although the comma is included in an annotation, the base comma is not annotated – the annotation that includes the comma is centred over the word 方面. I don't really know what the right answer is – perhaps there are no stringent rules. I'm just looking at the examples and the text from clreq, and noticing a divergence. |
Hmm, the section title is Characters as the Basic Units for Annotating Pronunciation, but the example in w3c/type-samples#94 should use the rules in 3.3.4.3 Words as the Basic Units for Annotating Pronunciation. |
|
I think it would be good to clarify in clreq whether there are any rules about this. |
Sorry, I don't quite understand what needs to be clarified in clreq. Currently, 3.3.4.2 (the "character as a unit" section) mentions that punctuations are excluded, and 3.3.4.3 (the "word as a unit" section) mentions that punctuations can be included. |
|
The question for me is how one handles punctuation in annotations when using the word-based approach (ie. using group-ruby for words). There appear to be three alternatives in the samples we have seen in this thread: [1] Add punctuation to the annotations by attaching an annotation over the punctuation in the base text (only), like this: [2] Don't add an annotation to the punctuation in the base line: add the punctuation instead to the previous annotation, like this: [3] Group the base text punctuation with the preceding han character(s) and annotate both/all as a unit, like this (look particularly at the question mark): Are all of these approaches ok? Is it just down to the author as to which is chosen? |
|
https://w3c.github.io/clreq/#h-words_as_basic_units_for_annotating_pronunciation seems to suggest that option 2 is the correct approach. |
xfq
changed the title
|
The difference between [2] and [3] can be seen if you think about how you would mark up these two alternatives. [2] would have the following markup: in [3], however, the base ？ appears below the annotation I'm not making any judgements here about which is correct – just noting the difference, and asking whether both approaches are common. |
|
I see. Option 2 is the correct approach indeed. |
xfq
changed the title
Preview | Diff