Re: <q>

2008/10/29 Justin James <j_james@mindspring.com>

> I think that we all (you, me, Sam) agree that HTML specification should not
> define this behavior, that it is better left to the CSS folks.


I do *not* agree. Again, please do not put words in my mouth.


> At that point, it means that what we do is:
> * Keep <q> in HTML


Yes.


> * Redefine <q> to remove this idea of magic quotes


By "magic quotes", I believe you mean quotation marks generated by UAs upon
encountering <q> elements.* If so, then I do *not* agree <q> should be
redefined to "remove the idea" of them. I have stated my reasons for this in
previous posts.

Let me re-emphasise: neither

<p>"<q>I'm tired of this,</q>" he said.</p>

nor

<p><q>"I'm tired of this,"</q> he said.</p>

are constructions that should be forced upon anyone who wishes to use the
<q> element. They both feature redundancies, and it is not clear which is
"correct" (which is one reason I think neither of them are).

<p><q>I'm tired of this,</q> he said.</p>

is a far more elegant solution, for the reasons expressed in my previous
emails in this thread.

*Please do not use the term "magic quotes" for this. The phrase "magic
quotes", for many web developers (including me), refers to a feature of PHP.


> * Ping the CSS folks and ask them to take up this issue


If rules for the recommended default presentation of <q> elements end up
being codified in a codex that is referenced by the HTML 5 spec, rather than
being incorporated into it (either option is acceptable to me), then there
is the question of which group(s) should collect and maintain those rules. I
certainly have *not* suggested that this task fall on the shoulders of the
CSS WG. The only role in this I feel CSS must have is in providing a
language in which to encode those rules.

Once more: please do not put words in my mouth.

Regards,

Sam