Home | Public Area
Public Groups Area » Public Documents » Public View Comment

Comment #00289 - Concerning Comment 00256: Ruby Tagging - z39.96-2012.pdf

Comment 289
New (Unresolved)
ANSI/NISO Z39.96-2012, JATS: Journal Article Tag Suite (version 1.0) (Revision 0)
Comment Submitted by
Debbie Lapeyre
2013-08-26 16:06:24


In a decision on July 1, 2013, the JATS Standing Committee

voted 'not to include the Ruby Parenthesis element , which is a

workaround for non-HTML5 compliant browsers'.


I would like that decision to be reconsidered. It seems to me

that the Archiving Tag Set (but not the other Tag Sets) will

need , to preserve any s that a publisher or archive may

have used. This could be accomplished with an , but browsers

would not to be able to interpret .


The point of Archiving is to retain everything in the document,

even tagging that may not represent best practice.
Submitter Proposed Solution


Please allow the element Ruby Parenthesis to be used in Archiving.
Ms. Debbie Lapeyre
2013-08-27 09:36:41

Thank you for your patience. The two paragraphs of the Submitter
Comment have lost all embedded tags (as we all knew they would)
and SHOULD read as follows:

I would like that decision to be reconsidered. It seems to me
that the Archiving Tag Set (but not the other Tag Sets) will
need the <rp> element to preserve any <rp> elements that a
publisher or archive may have used. This could be accomplished with
an <x> element, but browsers would not to be able to interpret
the <x>.

The point of Archiving is to retain everything in the document,
even tagging that may not represent best practice.

Document Information

Comment Information