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

Re: q, quote, blockquote

From: Charles Hinshaw <charles@everydayrevolution.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2007 09:56:55 -0400
Message-Id: <C46F4A43-333F-472D-9A0F-72A45C5E5F1A@everydayrevolution.com>
To: 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).
>

That is a very valid point.


> 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).
>

I didn't mean to imply in my example that the class of "blockquote"  
would be pre-defined to do something -- but rather that a class could  
be used by the document author to automatically have quotes applied  
before and after the element. The author, in this case, could also  
include quotes as punctuation in the written document since no  
"default" behavior would apply them. Take this to be the exact same  
thing without any reliance on CSS:


>> <p>Einstein said &#8220;<span  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>.&#8221;</p>
>>

Thanks for reading -- any clue why my post took 2 days to appear?

Charles
Received on Monday, 10 September 2007 16:11:37 GMT

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