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

Re: updated cite definition - please review

From: Smylers <Smylers@stripey.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2013 08:40:33 +0100
To: public-html@w3.org
Message-ID: <20130829074033.GA6965@stripey.com>
Henri Sivonen writes:

> On 08/23/2013 02:52 PM, Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
> 
> > It would be best to declare <cite> as a deprecated synonym for <i>,
> 
> Yes (assuming that "deprecated" is interpreted as non-error but not
> encouraged for new pages).

Why even discouraged?

Suppose I'm writing a new page which features a title of a work, and I
wish it to be denoted as such. I could just use <i>, but the site may
also (or may later) be using <i> for things that aren't titles of works
-- and I wish to be able to style titles independently of other italic
phrases.

Obviously <i class=title> would work fine. But so would <cite>. What's
the advantage in picking <i class=title> over <cite>, given <cite>
already exists and is supported in user agents?

(Note, I'm not saying this would be sufficient reason for minting <cite>
if it didn't already exist.)

Smylers
-- 
Stop drug companies hiding negative research results.
Sign the AllTrials petition to get all clinical research results published.
Read more: http://www.alltrials.net/blog/the-alltrials-campaign/
Received on Thursday, 29 August 2013 07:48:35 UTC

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