W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > January 2007

[whatwg] Problems with the definition of <cite>

From: Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis <bhawkeslewis@googlemail.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 18:42:41 +0000
Message-ID: <1168972961.27180.9.camel@galahad>
James Graham wrote:

> So, to summarise, <cite> is insufficient for extracting useful semantics

That's not a fair summary: see the example I gave to Anne van Kesteren
of getting back to a Hamlet scene text from <cite>Hamlet, I.ii</cite>
with a mere Google query. It would be more accurate to see <cite> could
be improved upon. IMHO it would be nicer to have real elements in HTML
for detailed bibliographic elements, but that goes against the general
consensus that we should shift detailed semantics into
microformats/roles.

>  and has a (essentially unchangable) default style

It's not unchangeable at all. Browsers and users can set a different
default style on it; HTML5 can even suggest a different default style.

> which means that it will /at best/ be used correctly in English, 
> some of the time, with careful authouring.

This is no more true of <cite> than of any other HTML element with a
default style. For example, some scripts don't do well with the bold to
which <a>, <hX>, <th>, and <strong> elements default.

> You've presented quite a convincing argument to deprecate <cite>.

Deprecating <cite> wouldn't solve any problems, as far as I can see. How
would you connect <q> or <blockquote> to a particular hCite block?

--
Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis
Received on Tuesday, 16 January 2007 10:42:41 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 13 April 2015 23:08:31 UTC