Mention Chinese in the document

[xfq]

Only Japanese is mentioned in the document now. It would be useful to mention clreq and add some examples in Chinese.

[murata2makoto]

I am afraid that I cannot do it. @xfq, could you create a pull request?

[murata2makoto]

I find that the ruby terminology in JLreq and that in CLreq are very different. In particular, CLreq does not use the term "ruby".

For this reason, I start to wonder if it makes sense to create a separate document for Chinese.

[xfq]

Based on the discussion in w3c/clreq#355 , CLReq does intend to use the term 'ruby'. The clreq group just hasn't updated the document yet.

Unless there's a big difference in behaviour between Chinese and Japanese, I think we should mention them in the same document.

[murata2makoto]

Then, synchronization of the ruby terminology in the next version of JLreq and CLreq is important! @kidayasuo

[kidayasuo]

It is great!
It appears that #39 and #45 are discussing the same thing. Can one be closed?

[himorin]

It appears that #39 and #45 are discussing the same thing. Can one be closed?

note, #45 has been already closed (one week before).

[murata2makoto]

Which topic should be mentioned?

1. Choosing a dialect (Mandarin, Cantonese, or other) before reading out loud (?)
2. Correspondence between Chinese characters and pronunciation is much simpler (pronunciation is almost uniquely determined by Chinese characters(?))
3. Unlike Furigana in Japanese, Hanyu Pinyin and Bopomofo can represent four voices(?)
4. Ruby other than furigana is much rarer(?)

I am afraid that I know none of the above topics very well. In particular, I don't know if always ignoring Chinese ruby (Hanyu Pinyin and Bopomofo ) is a good idea. Certainly a separate document for the TTS of Chinese ruby is useful.