W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > October 2008

Re: <q>

From: Sam Kuper <sam.kuper@uclmail.net>
Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2008 18:32:33 +0100
Message-ID: <4126b3450810241032v14954a9blab206932ea0a304e@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Chris Wilson" <Chris.Wilson@microsoft.com>
Cc: "HTML WG" <public-html@w3.org>
2008/10/24 Chris Wilson <Chris.Wilson@microsoft.com>

>  I'd like to suggest a different strategy for <q>.  I'm not comfortable
> with a strategy that directly says you must break the only required
> rendering rule in HTML4.01 in order to be compliant with HTML5.
I might be a bit behind the curve on this. Is what you object to the fact
that in HTML 4.01, UAs are required to prepend and append quotation marks to
the contents of <q> elements, whereas HTML5 does not require this?

> I believe we should pick one of the following options: 1) it should either
> be removed
Do you mean by this option that the <q> element should be entirely removed
from the spec?

> 2) required to quote, knowing there are nesting/locale problems,
By this do you mean, the UA *must* append and prepend quotation marks to <q>
element contents?

> 3) required to quote unless the immediately contained characters are quote
> characters, allowing locale-specific or nesting-specific author choice,
Ditto the above, with the caveat you've given.

> 4) nest automatically with an attribute to control quoting
I take it you mean that the attribute would state that, for instance, "The
first level of nesting is to be rendered with double quotation marks, the
next level with single ones, and any further levels will alternate in the
same fashion." If so, I favour this option: it permits the greatest
separation of presentation from content.

> , or 5) (my least favorite option) leave it ambiguous.
I don't like 5) either. It's time HTML's <q> element became something one
can use with confidence!

Received on Friday, 24 October 2008 17:33:13 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:15:38 UTC