- From: Jukka K. Korpela <jukka.k.korpela@kolumbus.fi>
- Date: Mon, 09 Sep 2013 22:24:33 +0300
- To: public-html@w3.org
2013-09-09 22:06, Steve Faulkner wrote: > > > But within a quotation, whatever the difference might be, it > should be retained simply because it is the right thing (morally, > scientifically, and legally). Whatever is presented as direct > quote should be an exact reproduction of the quoted part of work, > except when changes are necessitated and indicated. > > > So if I copy some text then take that text and put it in a blockquote, > without copying the underlying code it includes, it is wrong " > (morally, scientifically, and legally)"? Yes. Just as it it similarly wrong to quote printed text in a printed book so that the use of italic, bolding, or underlining is omitted. > > I find that difficult to accept. In many cases an author has limited > control over the way their content is marked up or the person (or > machine) doing the is not the author of the text, in many cases where > a quote is sourced is not the primary source, in many cases the > primary source is not a HTML document. > No work may legally be published without the consent of the author, unless its copyright has expired. A quotation shall, of course, present an excerpt from a primary source. For a work that has been published both in printed format and in HTML format, you can quote either variant in your HTML document; they can both be regarded as primary, even if one of them was published before the other. -- Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
Received on Monday, 9 September 2013 19:24:56 UTC