- From: Shane McCarron <shane@spec-ops.io>
- Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2016 09:38:21 -0500
- To: Bill Kasdorf <bkasdorf@apexcovantage.com>
- Cc: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>, Liam Quin <liam@w3.org>, W3C Digital Publishing IG <public-digipub-ig@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAJdbnOCJGY1gVfG6-5mtmKYOsjEnJ0Bx9OgyHfnU5vQFr0e4+A@mail.gmail.com>
Well - there is no requirement that bibliographic citations use this facility, of course. Also, with the type="none" change you wouldn't get the numbers displayed on those citations. Instead you would get their @title value if they had one - which could be an APA or MLA style citation, for example. Now this is not perfect.... Liam has pointed out a problem with this technique, but it is an option. On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 9:19 AM, Bill Kasdorf <bkasdorf@apexcovantage.com> wrote: > I should also point out that many publishers are wary about letting a > system auto-number bibliographic citations (though they love the > convenience of autonumbering footnotes). The reason is that footnotes can > move around a lot in the course of editing and producing a publication (and > must always be in consecutive numerical order), whereas bibliographic > citations tend to be fixed. Also, bibliographic citations are most often > cited by many multiple points in the text (whereas footnotes are typically > one-to-one). So a <label> with explicit content would often be preferable > to publishers, I think, for bibliographic citations, with unique @ids that > don't care about being consecutive on each citation and @hrefs every place > they're cited in the text.—Bill Kasdorf > > > > *From:* Ivan Herman [mailto:ivan@w3.org] > *Sent:* Tuesday, April 26, 2016 3:39 AM > *To:* Shane McCarron > *Cc:* Liam Quin; W3C Digital Publishing IG > *Subject:* Re: HTML-Note and bibliographies > > > > > > 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> 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 > > > > -- Shane McCarron Projects Manager, Spec-Ops
Received on Tuesday, 26 April 2016 14:39:16 UTC