- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2013 11:26:57 +0000
- To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=23008 --- Comment #4 from steve faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com> --- (In reply to Charles McCathieNevile from comment #2) > Actually, the cite element should be a bit more liberal. There are many ways > to refer to something, and we should accept them as valid content. > > I note that both Google and Bing, invalidly according to the spec, use cite > for URLs in their search results. I think it is reasonable on the web to > treat a URL as a reference. > > In practice even a description such as "in <cite>the book about HTML by the > guy with the funny hair</cite> they sometimes say sensible things like > <q>and</q>" seems reasonable, if not the most common case. > > I would change the text > > "It must include either the title of the work or the name of the author > (person, people or organization) of the work, either of which may be in an > abbreviated form as per the conventions used for the addition of citation > metadata to quoted content." > > to something like > > "The content of the element should be a reference in some commonly > understood form, such as the name or a nickname of the person cited, or the > work, a URL, or the like." > > (Note that I have changed must to should. Although I am happy with a must > requirement for authors, it is quite difficult to validate whether a > reference is valid or not - there are simple cases, and then there are very > difficult ones). I have relaxed the definition to allow URLs as their are millions of <cite>URL</cite> instances being published in search results. I have left the author requirement as a must as it may reduce the misuse of cite, but am not holding my breath. It would be really useful to have some data about use of <cite> by search engines for example, but again not holding breath. Will leave this bug open for now for further feedback. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug.
Received on Wednesday, 11 September 2013 11:26:58 UTC