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

Re: HTML-Note and bibliographies

From: Shane McCarron <shane@spec-ops.io>
Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2016 15:11:51 -0500
Message-ID: <CAJdbnOCHRZt-SnYowAWw2V4g_45vbAXZ7PVpzqtqR2cVk++xyQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Leonard Rosenthol <lrosenth@adobe.com>
Cc: "public-digipub-ig@w3.org" <public-digipub-ig@w3.org>
@type already has meaning in HTML and having its meaning be wildly
different on another element would violate the principle of least
surprise.  But I do like the idea of another value.  It does not have to be
a single character; although that would make it more consistent with the
other defined values.  How about type="none" when the type of a note should
not affect its display value?

Also, no real reason that the title attribute of any note could not be
included in its display value if it has one.  So, for example

<note type="1" title="My Note" id="note1">Some text for my note</note>

<note type="none" title="My Other Note" id="note2">The text for my other

When referenced as

<p>Some content <noteref note="note1"/> some additional content <noteref
note="note2"/> with more content after</p>

Could result in a display like:

Some content *1. My Note* some additional content *My Other Note*

Or whatever.  NOTE: The styling above is NOT what is being proposed.  But
it is hard to do markup styling in email.

On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 12:58 PM, Leonard Rosenthol <lrosenth@adobe.com>

> Not a big fan of “empty” having a meaning.
> Why not change type to something else – like list-type?   And then use
> type for footnote, endnote, biblio, etc.  This would be the semantic types
> (ala aria-role) while you still have group, which points to the specific
> group of notes (at least that was how I read it).
> Leonard
> From: Shane McCarron <shane@spec-ops.io>
> Date: Monday, April 25, 2016 at 1:07 PM
> To: "public-digipub-ig@w3.org" <public-digipub-ig@w3.org>
> Subject: HTML-Note and bibliographies
> Resent-From: <public-digipub-ig@w3.org>
> Resent-Date: Monday, April 25, 2016 at 1:08 PM
> There was a question in the meeting today about whether a bibliography
> could be supported via this spec.  My answer was that it could.  I was
> wrong because:
>    - A "note" always has a "type"
>    - A "type" maps to the display value type ala the HTML "ol" element;
>    i, I, 1, a, or A [1]
>    - A "note" always has a "value" that is a number (just like the HTML
>    "ol" element
> But I like the *idea* of being able to do bibliographic references using
> the same mechanism.  I can envision supporting this by changing the model
> such that:
>    - If "type" is empty for a note, then prefer its title attribute for
>    display value
>    - If there is no title attribute or the contents are empty, then use
>    its "value" in decimal form for the display value
> Does this sound okay?
> [1] http://spec-ops.github.io/html-note/index.html#note-types
> --
> Shane McCarron
> Projects Manager, Spec-Ops

Shane McCarron
Projects Manager, Spec-Ops
Received on Monday, 25 April 2016 20:12:46 UTC

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