Re: is it necessary to disambiguate (using markup) inline notes,citations and original markup? [was] use of <mark> to denote notes in quoted text

Hi Leif,

Context would have mattered, but if I saw a <mark> within a quotation,
> I would have assumed that the text stemmed from the original source,
> and that the author of the current page had used <mark> to highlight an
> important passage within the quote.
>

OK that sounds reasonable

here the content of the element stems from and thus that
> there should be a *explicit* way for markup up that the content does
> not stem from the original quote. Since is is very common to edit
> quotes, such a thing ought to be quite useful.
>

OK, so you think we do need a markup method rather than just accepted
conventions such as []
but really it is only needed in the case where the original quote contains
notes no?

if <note> was added (for example) how would you disambiguate a <note>
element added by an author vs one in the original source quote?

--

Regards

SteveF
HTML 5.1 <http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/html/master/>


On 8 September 2013 16:38, Leif Halvard Silli <
xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no> wrote:

> Steve Faulkner, Sun, 8 Sep 2013 16:19:45 +0100:
>
> (I started to understand that <mark> was not your real question …)
>
> > Is it necessary to disambiguate (using markup) inline notes and citations
> > within quotations?
> >
> > Is it necessary to disambiguate code used in quoted text from code added
> by
> > the author doing the quoting?
> >
> > please read http://oli.jp/2011/blockquote/#using-footer and the
> following,
> > sections
> >
> > My feeling is that the content of a quote is the text not the markup.
>
> Context would have mattered, but if I saw a <mark> within a quotation,
> I would have assumed that the text stemmed from the original source,
> and that the author of the current page had used <mark> to highlight an
> important passage within the quote.
>
> You, OTOH, seem to think that <mark> would be interpreted as a
> *textual* addition. That we don’t agree on the interpretation ought to
> be a hint that cannot be taken for granted, just by looking at the
> element, where the content of the element stems from and thus that
> there should be a *explicit* way for markup up that the content does
> not stem from the original quote. Since is is very common to edit
> quotes, such a thing ought to be quite useful.
>
> Proposal: A <note> or <annotation> element for marking up anything that
> does dot stem to the original source.
>
> Leif H Silli