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

Re: The <who> element (Was: Change back the semantics of <cite>)

From: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2009 07:44:50 +0200
Message-ID: <4AB07B52.7070906@xn--mlform-iua.no>
To: HTMLWG <public-html@w3.org>
CC: Smylers <Smylers@stripey.com>
Smylers On 09-09-11 08.48:

> Leif Halvard Silli writes:
>> Leif Halvard Silli On 09-09-11 01.57:
>>> Smylers On 09-09-11 00.16:
>>>   
>>>> Whereas people, even when sources, do not typically have their
>>>> names distinguished.  So using a <cite> for both prevents it from
>>>> being able to convey anything useful    
>> Perhaps you would support a <who> element?

....

>>    The <who> element could:
>>
>> * Mark up names of (or reference to) persons (including juridical  
>> persons and personified things) and animals.
>>
>>    * A human citation/source: <cite> <who> Truman</who> </cite> : "The buck
>>      stops here".
> 
> Bah -- that's still causing <cite> confusion!


Only as long as the definition of <cite> is "work".

 
>>    * Addressee of an address: <address> <who> Leif</who> , 0323
>>      Oslo</address> 
>>    * Someone spoken about: <p> I saw <who> Leif</who> .</p> 
>>    * With emphasize: <p> I saw <em> <who> Leif</who> </em> .</p> 
>>    * Someone acting: <p> <who> Leif</who> saw me.
>>    * Instance defining who someone is: <p> <dfn> <who> Leif</who> </dfn> is
>>      a friend.</p> (To use only <dfn> Leif</dfn> could seem strange and,
>>      again, perhaps the name would be styled differently.
> 
> I think <dfn> would be reasonable there, if it's the defining instance
> of the name being used elsewhere in the document.  If you wish to style
> it differently from other defining instances then <dfn class=person>
> could be used.

 >

>>      (The above samples cannot be expressed using <b> , which the draft
>>      recommends for names in gossip articles.
> 
> Why not?


If you say <dfn><who>Leif</who></dfn>, then it is clear that you 
define me as a "who". But otherwise, it is meaningless to give a 
*definition* of persons. Martin Luther cannot be defined. Persons 
cannot be defined. One would also like to discern between giving a 
definition of what a name means etymologically versus a definition 
of who someone is. Using <dfn><b>Leif</b></dfn> can not bring any 
clarity to this.

If someone is referred to as source, and it is also defined who 
he/she is, then I guess <dfn><cite>Leif</cite></dfn> could work 
fine, as <cite> about a person presupposes that you are interested 
in his/her /role/ in life ...

As for <address><who>name</who></address>: My wife sent a letter 
to someone whose name reminded about the Norwegian form of 
"Russia". Additionally, she placed the name at the bottom line in 
the address - as is customary in Russia. Norwegian post sent it to 
Russia before it was returned to sender ...

City names in postal addresses are often written in upper case. 
Uppercase is some form of emphasize. Or one may underline the name 
of the country. Etc.

Clearly both word order and styling can be misunderstood.

 
>>      But <who> could be used in such gossip articles ... )
>>
>> * Enrich dialog/dl lists:
>>
>>    <dialog> <dt> <who> Leif</who> joined<dd> <!--act--> </dd> 
>>      <dt> <who> <cite> Leif</cite> </who> <dd> Hello!<!--speak--> 
>>  </dialog> 
>>
>> * Be used as basis for generating name indexes/person registers (from  
>> everything marked up as <who> )
>> * Have a broader use than the hypothetical <name> element.
> 
> I'm unconvinced that any of the above are improvements on simply not
> marking up the names (or using classes on existing elements or <span> or
> <b>), but if you're determined to mark up names then we could justify
> creating <who> or <person> for doing that so as to stop people wanting
> to use <cite> for it.


I'm not determined to mark up names. Only sources.

<who> seems interesting to me. Perhaps in HTML 6. The point right 
now is to discern between names as such and names as source 
references.

>  (Analogously to creating <dialog> to stop <dl>
> having dual rôles, rather than because <dialog> is really needed.)


This sounds like avoiding dual roles for the sake of avoiding dual 
roles. Isn't it mildly absurd if this should be OK:

<dl><dt><cite>HTML 4</cite><dd>DL may be used for dialog</dl>

But not this:

<dl><dt><cite>Leif</cite><dd>DL may be used for dialog</dl>

?
-- 
leif halvard silli
Received on Wednesday, 16 September 2009 05:45:33 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:39:08 UTC