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

Re: <q>

From: Ben Boyle <benjamins.boyle@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2008 01:41:23 +1000
Message-ID: <5f37426b0810280841q6484c0f3u820766353a5c29b3@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Chris Wilson" <Chris.Wilson@microsoft.com>
Cc: "HTML WG" <public-html@w3.org>

Lots of interesting points. Are we ready to address the original
question from Chris? [1]

On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 11:01 PM, Chris Wilson
<Chris.Wilson@microsoft.com> wrote:
> 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 believe we should
> pick one of the following options:

> 1) it should either be removed

I have been convinced this won't suit many people. Keep <q>


> 2) required to quote, knowing there are nesting/locale problems

I would rather it didn't, but am not too fussed as I avoid <q> if it bothers me.
And it's been noted this doesn't help proper adoption of <q> with
authors, so I'm not keen on this option either.


> 3) required to quote unless the immediately contained characters are quote characters,
> allowing locale-specific or nesting-specific author choice

I really like this option. Is it practical?
(We can somewhat achieve this now with the quotes property in css.)


> 4) nest automatically with an attribute to control quoting

Not keen on a new attribute (we'll have different opinions on the
default for sure)


> 5) (my least favorite option) leave it ambiguous.

Got to have that "do nothing" option for completeness lol. But I think
option 1, remove <q>, is the least favoured now.


In order of my preference: 3, 2, 4, 5, 1.

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2008Oct/0092.html
Received on Tuesday, 28 October 2008 15:42:02 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:38:58 UTC