* Delirium <delirium(a)hackish.org> [2004-06-09 04:04]:
Jens Frank wrote:
>Shouldn't UTF-8 provide the needed diacritic characters needed to compose
>these, without needing HTML tables?
[...]
So it's really something more on the
publication-layout level than on
the character level, which is why it'll probably never be in Unicode,
even as a combinator sort of thing.
To be pedantic about it, there are three characters defined in Unicode
for this:
U+FFF9 INTERLINEAR ANNOTATION ANCHOR
U+FFFA INTERLINEAR ANNOTATION SEPARATOR
U+FFFB INTERLINEAR ANNOTATION TERMINATOR
In systems that support them,
<FFF9><kanji><FFFA><hiragana><FFFB> would
mean the kanji with the hiragana as ruby annotation. In practice, I
don't think this is implemented anywhere. It was defined more for
internal use in systems that could use them, not as characters that
could appear in plain text or entered by users.
--
Alexandros Diamantidis * adia(a)hellug.gr