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

Re: <q> vs <p>

From: Philip TAYLOR (Ret'd) <P.Taylor@Rhul.Ac.Uk>
Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2008 16:56:47 +0000
Message-ID: <490B38CF.4020101@Rhul.Ac.Uk>
To: Sam Kuper <sam.kuper@uclmail.net>
CC: "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>

Sam Kuper wrote:

> 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. 

I respectfully disagree.  If HTML 4 (and earlier) had nothing
at all to say about

	"<q> ... </q>"

then an author was free to use the construction without
constraint.  if HTML 5 is defined to add quotation marks,
unconditionally, then both the above and the previously

	<q>" ... "</q>

should be deprecated in HTML 5.

> 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).

Fine : I will re-read and respond as soon as I am
sure I have a better understanding of your proposal.

>            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.

We are discussing legacy content.  I can see no reason why
the next generation of browsers need render legacy content
any better than the existing generation; what really matters
(IMHO) is that authoring in HTML 5 should offer significant
advantages, otherwise this WG's work is very likely to
be wasted.

>         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.

Can you explain that, Sam ?  Either current browsers add quotation
marks or they do not.  Even if, by chance, the majority browser
behaviour matches the majority author markup, the minority author
markup will still be rendered incorrectly.

> 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.

But again I am talking of legacy content : all that is necessary
for legacy content is that an HTML 5 browser should render such
content no worse that the current generation of browsers; all
real effort should be put into ensuring that HTML 5 browsers
render HTML 5 documents consistently, conformantly and adequately,
if I may re-cycle your list.

Received on Friday, 31 October 2008 16:57:37 UTC

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