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

Re: <q> vs <p>

From: Sam Kuper <sam.kuper@uclmail.net>
Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2008 14:38:22 +0000
Message-ID: <4126b3450810310738m646eab4eqccc0f7f9ac52c6c7@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Philip TAYLOR (Ret'd)" <P.Taylor@rhul.ac.uk>
Cc: "HTML WG" <public-html@w3.org>
2008/10/31 Philip TAYLOR (Ret'd) <P.Taylor@rhul.ac.uk>
>
> Sam Kuper wrote:
>
>> 2008/10/31 Philip TAYLOR (Ret'd) <P.Taylor@rhul.ac.uk
>
> [snip]
>>
>> Well, the second option there was never conformant, so it doesn't make
>> sense to mark it as deprecated. The first option wasn't advised or, really,
>> mentioned at all in HTML 4.x, so it doesn't make sense to mark that
>> deprecated either (there's nothing to mark).
>
> I don't follow your logical here, Sam.


For something to be marked deprecated in a spec, it has to have been
recommended in a previous spec; otherwise, there's nothing to mark as
deprecated. Neither <q>"(Quote)"</q> nor "<q>(Quote)</q>" or suchlike have
been recommended in previous HTML specs, AFAIK, and therefore (for the
reason given in the previous sentence) cannot be marked deprecated in HTML
5.


>  Please could you read those proposals?
>>
>
> I have, Sam, otherwise I would not feel in
> a position to respond.


Then you haven't understood them. My apologies; I realise this may be my
fault rather than yours (which is why I'm willing to continue corresponding
on the topic).


>    and the legacy mode of operation then
>>    defined to produce optimal results for whichever
>>    group predominates.
>> Leaving the rest to render wrongly, presumably.
>
> Exactly.


I don't think that would be acceptable. It would represent a very poor
approach to quality control on the part of the W3C.


>  I sure wouldn't be happy to have a "legacy" mode implemented in browsers
>> which would potentially apply an inappropriate rendering algorithm to 49% of
>> the existing Web.
>
> That is exactly the situation with the current generation
> of browsers;


Er, not wrt. <q>, it isn't.

Regards,

Sam


> I genuinely fail to see why a new generation
> go out of its way to improve on current behaviour for
> legacy documents.


This is, as far as I can tell, a general assertion not limited to <q>.

Here's why, in a general sense, it may be worth improving on current
behaviour. Current behaviour may be:

   - inconsistent;
   - non-conformant;
   - inadequate.

A world in which Web UAs implement specs consistently, conformantly, and
otherwise adequately would be a world in which authoring and consuming Web
documents and services is predictable and, as a result, is probably quicker
and easier than it would be in a world in which Web UAs implement specs
inconsistently, non-conformantly or otherwise inadequately.

Regards,

Sam
Received on Friday, 31 October 2008 14:38:57 UTC

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