- From: Tex Texin via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2016 21:54:31 +0000
- To: public-digipub-ig@w3.org
Thanks Asmus. I agree about the scare quotes. If the W3C prefers the q element to be used only for actual quotations (true or not), then the only way to make the point and limit the violations of that philosophy would be to offer another element for bracketing text for non-quotation purposes. I propose the <air-quotes> or <bunny-ears> element for wrapping text intended to be bracketed for sarcasm, irony, etc. but not a quotation. :-) It would probably find all sorts of uses, especially where so many people are using emoji to markup text with emotions. They could use css classes to precede, follow, or bracket text with emojis for laughing, tongue in cheek, surprise, etc.based on their frequent use of certain reactions. On 4/29/2016 1:42 PM, Tex Texin wrote: > It is news to me that a quotation needs to be true. I thought it only needs to represent exact wording. Whether the person actually said it, is irrelevant. > > So Bogart never said "Play it again Sam". He said "Play it Sam". > > Both would be quoted and use the q element. > > And quotes can be used in a question where the truth is being established: Did you say 'I am guilty'? > > Am I mistaken? No! I think the <q> element, given that it exists, is fine for any text that appears inline, is set of from the surrounding text (normally) by balanced paired marks OR semantically is a quotation in the strict sense. One element of "q" is that it can be nested (and when nested, the text uses some convention for alternating the marks. I think the train has left the station for defining any tightly limited semantics. Even "scare quotes" should not be ruled out, because they would (I assume) show the same tendency of being rendered with alternating marks if nested (for example if a statement with scare quotes was itself quoted). A./ -- GitHub Notification of comment by textexin Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/i18n-discuss/issues/1#issuecomment-215891985 using your GitHub account
Received on Friday, 29 April 2016 21:54:34 UTC