W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > August 2013

Re: updated cite definition - please review

From: Jukka K. Korpela <jukka.k.korpela@kolumbus.fi>
Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2013 15:30:00 +0300
Message-ID: <521755C8.6060200@kolumbus.fi>
To: Bruce Lawson <brucel@opera.com>
CC: HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>
2013-08-23 15:08, Bruce Lawson wrote:
> On 23 August 2013 12:52, Jukka K. Korpela <jukka.k.korpela@kolumbus.fi> wrote:
>> The old definition is vague. So is the proposed new one. We have to live
>> with the cite element, but not love it. Minimal change (or actually, no
>> change to HTML 4.01) is the best way.
> This change is to restore the HTML 4.01 way.

Rather, to keep it.

>   By removing the ability
> to cite authors, lots of people have spent a good deal of time
> attempting to find other ways of marking that up, leading to potential
> code bloat (wrapping blockquotes in <figure>, for example, so they can
> use a <figcaption> instead of <cite> inside / next to a <blockquote>).

If you want to use some special markup when mentioning an author, you 
can use <span> or, if italic is suitable as default rendering, <i>. In 
most cases, there is no practical reason to use any markup for an 
author. People could endlessly try to find ways to use markup for 
company names, for city names, for trademarks, etc. It becomes realistic 
only if there is a real chance of having some generally used software 
recognize such markup and use it in a useful manner that justifies the 
cost of adding it.

-- 
Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
Received on Friday, 23 August 2013 12:30:21 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:16:34 UTC