W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > September 2007

Re: q, quote, blockquote

From: Ben Boyle <benjamins.boyle@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2007 18:54:26 +1000
Message-ID: <5f37426b0709100154w1529dcf2k583b702086ebcdd4@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Charles Hinshaw" <charles@everydayrevolution.com>
Cc: public-html@w3.org

I see them making the same (not "more") sense, however by using the
existing elements we gain backwards compatibility (with both existing
UAs and the "cowpaths" of existing authored content).

I don't know that there's any particular preference for tagnames vs
classes, but I think the HTML specification is more about defining
elements and attributes, and class names are reserved for extensions
to the language. The extensions might be specific to a document or
site, or shared amongst a community like microformats. In either case,
it would be bad for us to define any classes as they'd likely clash
with extensions. Maybe @role is an alternative (I don't know much
about it).

As for formatting, on a personal soapbox I've never believed that
punctuation was "style" and much prefer punctuation to be embedded in
the HTML. Punctuation is itself a form of markup, and extremely useful
to many tools that parse/understand language (screen reader being an
obvious example). "Mark Up" in the HTML sense has always been, to me,
about marking up written language. Written language includes
punctuation. It's not about replacing written constructions with new
verbose "tags". Well, it doesn't have to be about that.

Sometimes I go so far as to use quotation marks rather than <q> or
<blockquote>. I know, I'm completely out of control.

Fair suggestion though Charles. XHTML2 sort of takes a similar
approach by moving many semantics from tagnames into specific
attribute names (e.g. @href, @src, and the edit module). Class names
are left undefined open for custom extensions.

cheers
Ben



On 9/8/07, Charles Hinshaw <charles@everydayrevolution.com> wrote:
> This may be a little late in bringing this up, but I was just looking
> through the wiki (MuchAdoAboutQ) -
>
> Why do we have need any of these elements? A quote is not a structural
> building block in the same sense as a paragraph. That is to say that a
> quoted paragraph is still just a paragraph -- it just happens to originate
> with another author.
>
> Wouldn't something like:
>
> <p>Einstein said <span class="quote" src="http://www.example.com/"
> cite="Human-comprehensible bibliographic information" >I don't know what
> will be used in the next world war, but the 4th will be fought with
> stones</span>.</p>
>
> or
>
> <p class="quote" src="http://www.example.com/" cite="Human-comprehensible
> bibliographic information" >Most people go on living their everyday life:
> half frightened, half indifferent, they behold the ghostly tragi-comedy that
> is being performed on the international stage before the eyes and ears of
> the world.</p>
>
> or
>
> <div class="blockquote" src="http://www.example.com/"
> cite="Human-comprehensible bibliographic information" >
> <p>The process of scientific discovery is, in effect, a continual flight
> from wonder.</p>
> <p>The mere formulation of a problem is far more essential than its
> solution, which may be merely a matter of mathematical or experimental
> skills. To raise new questions, new possibilities, to regard old problems
> from a new angle requires creative imagination and marks real advances in
> science.</p>
> </div>
>
> make more sense semantically?
>
> As for formatting quotes, all three would rely on CSS.
>
> Charles
Received on Monday, 10 September 2007 08:54:37 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:16:07 GMT