W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-html@w3.org > May 2003

Re: <q> vs. <quote>, naming etc.

From: Robin Lionheart <w3c-ml@robinlionheart.com>
Date: Thu, 15 May 2003 07:59:35 -0400
Message-ID: <07cd01c31ad9$744acb30$117de518@prolog021503my>
To: <www-html@w3.org>

Tantek Çelik wrote:
> It turns out UAs (short of some sort of natural
> language parsing AI) don't have a chance of properly showing
> default quote marks that are depth/language sensitive,

<quote> probably would have been a better tag for HTML 4.0 to
introduce. Less compliant agents would have done no harm by ignoring it,
and language inappropriate quotation marks would not be an issue.

Jelks Cabaniss wrote:
> Why not leave <q> intact and adding <quote>, with notes about
> when you might prefer one over the other?

If both were in HTML 2.0, <q> would be barely more than semantic sugar.

Semantic sugar I'd gladly continue to use, though. <q>...</q> does trim the
<quote>&ldquo;...&rdquo;</quote> bandwidth (or the &ldquo;...&rdquo; alone
bandwidth), and is rather easier on my fingers.

I'll miss it when it's gone. I can't just make <quote> do the same with CSS
quote:before or quote:after, unless I want to exclude user agents that can't
do styles.
Received on Thursday, 15 May 2003 07:58:27 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 March 2012 18:15:55 GMT