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

RE: <q>

From: Justin James <j_james@mindspring.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2008 09:58:04 -0400
To: "'Sam Kuper'" <sam.kuper@uclmail.net>, "'Olivier GENDRIN'" <olivier.gendrin@gmail.com>
Cc: "'Ben Boyle'" <benjamins.boyle@gmail.com>, "'Chris Wilson'" <Chris.Wilson@microsoft.com>, "'HTML WG'" <public-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <038e01c93905$32ca53b0$985efb10$@com>



From: public-html-request@w3.org [mailto:public-html-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Sam Kuper
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 9:11 AM
To: Olivier GENDRIN
Cc: Ben Boyle; Chris Wilson; HTML WG
Subject: Re: <q>

> The great thing about having a quote element is that none of this is problematic: the
> spec* can specify a default presentation (for instance, adopting the CMS rule I've given
> above for cases where foreign languages are quoted in English) but users who desire a
> different presentation can simply make a style sheet tweak and - hey presto! - they've
> got all the customisation they need.

In this case, people who want this behavior should do it... in CSS as you mentioned. It is not HTML's responsibility to do grammar. If we insist on <q> working this way, then we should insist on <p>, <abbr>/<acronym>, <li>, and any other tags which have grammatical meanings to automagically insert punctuation, enforce capitalization, etc. as each language defines it. Additionally, the HTML should not validate if it uses a tag that makes no sense in the language that it claims to be; for example, if writing in ancient Greek, any lowercase characters should be declared invalid.

> I certainly think that for many use cases (e.g. where a corporate style sheet has already
> been created), simply entering a <q> element tag would be far less trouble for authors
> than having to manually look up the correct rules in a style manual and manually type the
> correct character. The <q> element would also, as I've pointed out in previous posts,
> permit houses to change their styles far more easily than would be the case otherwise.

I agree; those users should do just that, and the HTML spec should be silent on the matter.

> *As I've suggested above, the spec that defines these default presentations need not be
> the HTML 5 spec. If it isn't the HTML 5 spec, then I think the spec that *does* define
> the default presentations should be published in advance of HTML 5's final publication
> round, so that the HTML 5 spec can refer to it. Does this seem reasonable?

I would be happy with that approach. As stated above, putting it in HTML is against HTML's goals & scope, as far as I know. Punctuation is presentation, unless it is content. HTML says it should be content, so defining <q> to do it makes little sense to me.

J.Ja
Received on Tuesday, 28 October 2008 13:58:58 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:16:23 GMT