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

Re: <q>

From: Preston L. Bannister <preston@bannister.us>
Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2008 22:09:46 -0700
Message-ID: <7e91ba7e0810282209g4a90f408lda432b1156189eb4@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Justin James" <j_james@mindspring.com>
Cc: "Sam Kuper" <sam.kuper@uclmail.net>, "Ivan Enderlin" <w3c@hoa-project.net>, "Olivier GENDRIN" <olivier.gendrin@gmail.com>, "Ben Boyle" <benjamins.boyle@gmail.com>, "Chris Wilson" <Chris.Wilson@microsoft.com>, "HTML WG" <public-html@w3.org>
On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 8:22 PM, Justin James <j_james@mindspring.com>wrote:
[snip]

> I repeat:
>
> Automatically generation punctuation is fraught with danger.
>
> J.Ja
>

I agree.

This pretty much exactly matches my initial impression when first reading
the description of <q> in the HTML 4.01 specification. One of those notions
that sounds like it might be a good idea - at first - but fails badly in the
edge cases. (To be honest "insanely bad idea" was more like the words that
came to mind.)

To be fair, I thought it *possible* (if unlikely) that the edge cases might
somehow be covered. From the discussion prior, this just cannot be right in
all cases. Using <q> to add a bit of machine-recognizable semantics is
reasonable. Using <q> as an initially neutral container to which style and
behavior rules can be applied, is also reasonable. Inserting printable
characters into the viewed HTML document is dubious for any case where the
browser's default is different from the author's intent, and the mix of
languages (and associated lexigraphic conventions) in use.
Received on Wednesday, 29 October 2008 05:25:44 GMT

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