W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-digipub-ig@w3.org > April 2016

Re: Wiki summary of q element default styling issues

From: John Cowan <cowan@mercury.ccil.org>
Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2016 09:35:00 -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>
Message-ID: <20160425133500.GB14118@mercury.ccil.org>
ishida@w3.org scripsit:

> For example, thinking about
> blockquotes or figures, I don't choose to use blockquote or figure
> elements only when i think there's a chance that someone will try to
> harvest blockquotes or figures, i use the elements because they
> describe the content, and also because they typically come with some
> minimally useful default rendering. 

Sure, a default *style*.  That's a different story from default *content*,
which is what q elements try to provide.

> I don't understand this.  Why would i need to add a class to every q
> element?  Surely you'd only need to introduce a class for quotations
> when you don't want to follow the default - and if you're using CSS
> properly, often you don't even need class names then either, since
> the selectors can be written to understand the context in which a q
> element sits. 

Is CSS capable of specifying alternation of marks in nested quotations
to arbitrary depths?  My understanding is that it is not.

> The specific issue that concerns me in this thread is how to ensure
> that any fallback default styling best represents what the majority
> of people would expect to see.

Is there in fact such a majority view?  It doesn't seem so.

-- 
John Cowan          http://www.ccil.org/~cowan        cowan@ccil.org
                if if = then then then = else else else = if;
Received on Monday, 25 April 2016 13:35:24 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 25 April 2017 10:44:42 UTC