RE: <q>

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Daniel Glazman []
> Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2008 4:28 PM
> To: Justin James
> Cc: 'Sam Kuper'; 'HTML WG'
> Subject: Re: <q>
> Justin James wrote:
> > I found it on Amazon's French site.
> Yeah, that was really hard to find : my original message contained a
> link to it on !!

Sorry, I missed the link, and thought it needed to be found since Sam was not looking for it there.

> > This book is 196 pages long. The idea that someone should need to
> read this book (in its original language) and understand it, all in
> order to implement the <q> tag is absurd. And an author needs to do the
> same in CSS if they need to use a "grammar" that is not implemented by
> a browser vendor? All to leverage one tag?
> Justin, your two comments in a row are just absurd. First you complain
> because a book about french national typographical rules is not
> available from and therefore question the fact it's a
> reliable source, then you complain the source is too long.

My point here is that trying to understand this is an undue burden for someone trying to write an HTML 5 UA, or trying to understand how documents they author will be presented.

> Just so you know, a previous edition of this book was already a major
> source when we added quotes management to CSS 2.

OK, and I think that CSS is where this stuff belongs too. Which is *exactly* what I have been saying the entire time, and most others on this list seem to agree.

Overall: why the impulse to push this one particular piece of presentation logic directly into the HTML spec?


Received on Wednesday, 29 October 2008 20:51:24 UTC