Terminology of ruby

[himorin]

In current simple-ruby, "ruby string" (partly "ruby characters") and "base characters" / "base character string" / "ruby base xxxx" are used.
In JLReq, "ruby character(s)" and "base character" (along with "non-base character") are used.

We might be better to unit these.

[xfq]

FWIW, clreq uses "annotation text" and "base text".

[himorin]

@kidayasuo any suggestion?

[kidayasuo]

“ruby something” and “(ruby) base something” where something = string or text or characters?

Since the name of the feature is “ruby” using it feels natural. It would also avoid possible misunderstandings.

As for the "something" part, as they are short, typically one word or one compound word, “string” would be a good choice. To me “text” is at least a sentence. “characters” can mean a collection of characters like “fullwidth characters” v.s. “character string”, i.e. a bit ambiguous. So, however I do not have a strong opinion, I would vote for “string”.

[himorin]

I'd vote for "ruby string" and "ruby base string", too.

[r12a]

The document contained many instances such as "When one of the ruby strings is longer than the base character string". This is incorrect stated, since most (all?) ruby strings will be longer than the base string. For example, はたけ is a string of 3 characters, while its base string, 畑, is only 1 character.

In the edits to the translation i changed the following:

• 'ruby string' to 'ruby annotation'
• 'is longer than' to 'is wider than'
• 'the base character string' to 'its base text'

So the sentence becomes "When one of the ruby annotations is wider than its base text", which is much simpler, clearer, and more accurate.

This terminology fits better with the existing documentation in our articles, but is also more accurate. Strings are usually things that are measured in code points internally, but we are talking in this document about two visually-realised entities and their relationship. 'Longer than' is ambiguous, especially when talking about strings, because it could relate to the number of code points: actually its the visual width when typeset that is the determining factor in these rules.

[r12a]

Also, 'ruby string' is ambiguous to the newcomer, who has to figure out that the term is being used to refer to the annotation part of the ruby arrangement, rather than the base+rubyText, or even the base alone. Using 'ruby annotation' makes it immediately clear what we are talking about.

Using 'base character string' causes one to wonder why the word 'character' is needed here, whereas it wasn't needed for 'ruby string'. But also 'base character string' in some places in the document doesn't clearly enough indicate that we are talking about just the base text that is associated with the annotation, and there's still the issue about the use of the word 'string'. Apart from that, it's quite a long phrase, which lowers readability of the text. Changing to 'its base text' reduces the wordiness, while clarifying that we are talking specifically about the text that is specifically associated with the annotation.

[r12a]

Closing, since this was addressed in #34