- From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2016 09:38:37 +0200
- To: Shane McCarron <shane@spec-ops.io>
- Cc: Liam Quin <liam@w3.org>, W3C Digital Publishing IG <public-digipub-ig@w3.org>
Received on Tuesday, 26 April 2016 07:38:22 UTC
> On 26 Apr 2016, at 01:40, Shane McCarron <shane@spec-ops.io> wrote: > > Comments inline: > > On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 6:20 PM, Liam R. E. Quin <liam@w3.org <mailto:liam@w3.org>> wrote: > On Mon, 2016-04-25 at 12:07 -0500, Shane McCarron wrote: > > There was a question in the meeting today about whether a > > bibliography > > > [...] > > - If "type" is empty for a note, then prefer its title attribute > > for > > display value > > In general it's poor design to take text content from attributes, > because that precludes having markup (e.g. if a bibliographic reference > italicizes "et al." in the list of authors or puts a journal volume > number in bold, or has Japanese ruby annotations). So I'm a little wary > of this. See [Quin, Rueben, Io _et. al_, 1984_b_] for details :-). > > Yeah - I am aware of this (obviously). But I don't really have a good alternative that would be both flexible AND easy to use. The title attribute accommodates popular citation styles (e.g., APA). Do you have an alternate suggestion? Well… I have seen bibliographies in history (my wife is a historian) where the citation mark is an arabic number in superscript:-( Ivan > > ---- Ivan Herman, W3C Digital Publishing Lead Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ mobile: +31-641044153 ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704
Received on Tuesday, 26 April 2016 07:38:22 UTC