- From: Robert Burns <rob@robburns.com>
- Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2007 13:43:05 -0500
- To: Charles Hinshaw <charles@everydayrevolution.com>
- Cc: public-html@w3.org
Hi Charles, On Sep 10, 2007, at 1:27 PM, Charles Hinshaw wrote: > >> [ suggestion that changing quotation tag names to quotation class >> names makes more sense ] > > Just to clarify -- I was absolutely not suggesting that we have a > class pre-defined for quotes in any way or that we define any class > name. > > In my example, the way that we know that the paragraph is a quote > is that it has a cite attribute -- making it a paragraph that cites > an outside source. That was actually my suggestion -- that changing > quotation tag names to the use of a cite attribute (or combinations > of attributes that adequately create a citation) on other existing > tags makes more sense. > > It could have had any class... or no class. That part was > irrelevant and would be up the the author as it is today. The problem I see with this approach is that it just doesn't distinguish a quotation at all. Adding a cite attribute to an element would best indicate an attribution. For example the cite attribute on the ins or del elements attributes the insertion or deletion to a certain contributor/editor. For XHTML2 and proposed also for HTML5, the inclusion of a global cite attribute would permit those sorts of attributions on any element. However, there's no way to surmise from a n attribution that the attribution is a direct quote a paraphrase or simply a loose association of an idea to its originator. The difference between a direction quotation and all other attributions seems worthy to me of having it's own semantic markup. Take care, Rob
Received on Monday, 10 September 2007 18:43:24 UTC