- From: John Cowan <cowan@mercury.ccil.org>
- Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2016 12:29:31 -0400
- To: ishida@w3.org
- Cc: "Asmus Freytag (c)" <asmusf@ix.netcom.com>, www International <www-international@w3.org>, W3C Digital Publishing IG <public-digipub-ig@w3.org>
ishida@w3.org scripsit: > i changed the text to: > > "Opinions from people on the public-digipub and www-international > mailing lists point to a desire for quotation marks to remain in the > format appropriate to the language of the text which lies outside > the principal quotation, rather than to change according to the > language of the text inside the quotation. This also means that > there is no linguistically-sensitive change to quotation marks used > for quotations within quotations." As long as you are adding minority opinions, why not add mine, which has seen some support on this list? "Others believe that even if the behavior of the q element were to be fully standardized, no single set of conventions can meet all needs, and that therefore the q element should be avoided in favor of explicit quotation marks, unless semantic analysis needs to determine which parts of the text are quotations. In this case, each q element should be associated with a class which bears an explicit CSS quote property." -- John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowan cowan@ccil.org Monday we watch-a Firefly's house, but he no come out. He wasn't home. Tuesday we go to the ball game, but he fool us. He no show up. Wednesday he go to the ball game, and we fool him. We no show up. Thursday was a double-header. Nobody show up. Friday it rained all day. There was no ball game, so we stayed home and we listened to it on-a the radio. --Chicolini
Received on Thursday, 21 April 2016 16:29:55 UTC