W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-digipub-ig@w3.org > April 2016

Re: Is <q> useful? [was Expected behaviour of quotation marks]

From: John Cowan <cowan@mercury.ccil.org>
Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2016 09:36:21 -0400
To: ishida@w3.org
Cc: Tex Texin <textexin@xencraft.com>, 'Dave Cramer' <dauwhe@gmail.com>, 'W3C Digital Publishing IG' <public-digipub-ig@w3.org>, 'www International' <www-international@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20160408133621.GB20917@mercury.ccil.org>
ishida@w3.org scripsit:

> if the quotes had been semantically identified using q elements, it
> would be trivial to do so.  

I agree that it would be good to have a way to semantically identify
quotations in running text.  It's the fact that browsers supply
quotation marks around them that's problematic.  There seems to be
no way to override what question marks are provided.

Playing with Chrome, I find that "en-us" produces ASCII double quotes,
whereas "en-gb" produces curly double quotes.  Arguably both of these
are wrong, but as an author, what am I supposed to do?  
To get the results I think are correct, I have to forgo the q element.

This could be repaired by providing a new element, perhaps named "quote",
which also indicates a quotation but doesn't supply any marks.  Alternatively,
the q element could accept attributes specifying the start and end quotes.

> if, instead, i just inserted the quotation inside a q element, i
> should be able to rely on the browser to apply some sensible default

Except that that appears not to be the case.

-- 
John Cowan          http://www.ccil.org/~cowan        cowan@ccil.org
I could dance with you till the cows come home.  On second thought,
I'd rather dance with the cows when you come home.
        --Rufus T. Firefly
Received on Friday, 8 April 2016 13:36:47 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:36:26 UTC