W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > April 2005

[whatwg] [web-apps] Titles in HTML

From: John Lewis <gleemax@myrealbox.com>
Date: Sat, 16 Apr 2005 20:39:13 -0500
Message-ID: <opspcr7nh2dmipy5@smtp.myrealbox.com>
On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 19:31:49 -0400, fantasai  
<fantasai.lists at inkedblade.net> wrote:

> John Lewis wrote:
>> On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 15:08:58 -0400, fantasai  
>> <fantasai.lists at inkedblade.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I agree that <q> has problems, particularly with en-US style  
>>> punctuation. However, if the italics is going to be in the CSS, I  
>>> think the quotation marks should also be there.
>>  But the italic text needs* to be applied via CSS. The quotation marks  
>> could
>> be written by the author. In plain text, for example, quotation marks  
>> are
>> content, and italic text must be faked (_like this_ to represent
>> underlining) or done without. In UAs that don't support CSS (or don't  
>> support
>> it fully), written quotation marks will still work.
>
> By that argument, in UAs that don't support CSS, italics won't work  
> either.

Italics was supported in UAs before CSS existed. AFAIK generated quotes  
haven't enjoyed the same support. What I was trying to say is that even  
CSS browsers that support font-style do not necessarily support generated  
quotes. Any browser that implements CSS1, for instance, or one of the many  
browsers with partial CSS2(.1) support. We can't assume that because  
font-style is supported that quotes/content will be too. One is basic  
(implemented more or less universally), and the other isn't.

Either way will work, but I still prefer manual quotation marks. I haven't  
seen any reason why generated quotation marks will be better.

-- 
John Lewis
Received on Saturday, 16 April 2005 18:39:13 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 13 April 2015 23:08:22 UTC