W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > September 2009

Re: Change back the semantics of <cite>

From: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2009 04:44:49 +0200
Message-ID: <4AB05121.3010207@xn--mlform-iua.no>
To: Toby Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk>
CC: Smylers <Smylers@stripey.com>, HTMLWG <public-html@w3.org>
Toby Inkster On 09-09-13 20.02:

> On 11 Sep 2009, at 16:45, Smylers wrote:
> 
>> But what does it actually achieve?  In what way does a user benefit  
>> from
>> a document having all the people mentioned marked up as such?


[...]

> If HTML 2 and HTML 4 differ on the definition of <cite>, it seems  
> more sensible to go with either the wider definition (as that will  
> encompass the narrower one) or the more recent definition, as these  
> will be compatible with more existing content. The HTML 4 definition  
> is both the wider definition and the more recent one, so seems the  
> way to go.

Indeed.

Smyler has only given styling reasoning for reserving <cite> for 
works. He has likewise said that one may use e.g. <span 
class="peopleSource"> for people sources.

But, well, if the author has this /styling/ wish that people 
sources and other sources should /display/ differently, the add 
that class to <cite>, then: <cite class="peopleSource">.

The problem, though, is how <cite> is currently defined in HTML 5. 
In HTML 4 it represents a reference to a source - human or not. 
Whereas HTML 5 currently says that it represents:

	"the title of a work [....] This can be a work that is being 
quoted or referenced in detail (i.e. a citation), or it can just 
be a work that is mentioned in passing."

By HTML 4's definition, a work should not be marked up with 
<cite>, unless that work is being mentioned as a source.
-- 
leif halvard silli
Received on Wednesday, 16 September 2009 02:45:32 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:16:48 GMT