Editorial suggestions from Myles

[r12a]

The following feedback was sent to me in email. Posting here with consent.

It seems it would be beneficial to

Too many pronouns. Unclear what this actually means.

Unlike JLReq [JLREQ], in this document only one layout method is presented

Awkward phrasing

In computer-based typesetting, the layout needs to be more or less determined based on predetermined rules, but it remains necessary to adjust the results in certain cases, for example by changing the association between base text and the ruby annotation, or by switching to a different placement policy.

Run-on sentence. Also, the word “determined” is used twice in a row

Considering all the possibilities that existed in movable type typesetting, the system to be designed needs to be very complex.

Seems contrary to the thesis of this document, that “simple” placement is possible

On the other hand, relative positions of the ruby annotation

What was the first hand?

modified in the light of any characters preceding and following

Light?

Also, when the ruby block is placed at the line head or the line end the

Comma between “end” and “the”

line edge line head or the line end

Be consistent with terminology

Also methods described

Comma between “Also” and “methods”

In some cases, this document suggests optional methods to be allowed as implementation defined, such as that a ruby annotation wider than its base text should not overhang any preceding or following kana characters.

Awkward wording

NOTE: Wrap opportunities

Seems like we need a whole section about how ruby interacts with justification. I don’t know why this is just a note.

The size of the ruby is by default set to half of the size of the base characters.

Use either “font size” instead of “size”, or “ruby annotation characters” instead of “ruby"

Mono-ruby is placed as follows.

Is this sentence necessary?

points 1, 2, and 3 belong to the first step

The points are “considerations.” It’s not clear what “belong to” means here.

When the ruby annotation consists of two or more characters, each character …

What about if it consists of 0 or 1 characters?

If the character preceding the base text is one

These two paragraphs are almost identical. Surely there’s a better way rather than repetition

then the end of the ruby annotation is aligned with the line’s end edge

… assuming the text is justified

The spatial ratio of 1 unit before/after and 2 units between

This note doesn’t say anything distinct from content that comes right after it. No reason for the note to exist

spacng

spacing

base character string

Should use consistent terminology

points 1, 2, and 3 belong to the first step, and points 4 and 5 belong to the second.

This is true for all 3 forms, so there’s no need to call it out 3 different times. Also, better to use consistent formatting

With jukugo-ruby, each base text is associated with its own ruby annotation….

Reading this initially, I was confused because I thought it meant “all the ruby texts together in aggregate” rather than “each individual ruby text paired with its ruby base”. Perhaps this should say “each” instead of “all”.

[r12a]

I created a PR for some of these comments at https://github.com/w3c/simple-ruby/pull/45

[himorin]

For remaining points:

modified in the light of any characters preceding and following

Light?

reworded: #57

line edge line head or the line end

Be consistent with terminology

made consistent: #57

In some cases, this document suggests optional methods to be allowed as implementation defined, such as that a ruby annotation wider than its base text should not overhang any preceding or following kana characters.

Awkward wording

rather than touching here, renamed title of another note, to make background clearer: #65

NOTE: Wrap opportunities

Seems like we need a whole section about how ruby interacts with justification. I don’t know why this is just a note.

updated: #68 placement of whole text along inline direction is not a part of placement of ruby.

points 1, 2, and 3 belong to the first step

The points are “considerations.” It’s not clear what “belong to” means here.

issue #74

then the end of the ruby annotation is aligned with the line’s end edge

… assuming the text is justified

added another line: #66

The spatial ratio of 1 unit before/after and 2 units between

This note doesn’t say anything distinct from content that comes right after it. No reason for the note to exist

updated text #67

base character string

Should use consistent terminology

made consistent: #57

points 1, 2, and 3 belong to the first step, and points 4 and 5 belong to the second.

This is true for all 3 forms, so there’s no need to call it out 3 different times. Also, better to use consistent formatting

updated: #57

[himorin]

All relevant PRs have merged. @kidayasuo close or not?