Re: ISSUE-48: UA-q-quotes - suggest closing on 2009-09-03

On Sep 3, 2009, at 8:18 AM, Martin Kliehm wrote:

> As consensus was reached in last week's telcon to close Issue-48,  
> I've filed two bug reports as promised.
> (q element)
> (blockquote)

Excellent, thanks!

  - Maciej

> Cheers,
>  Martin
> Martin Kliehm wrote:
>> Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>>> ISSUE-48: UA-q-quotes - Should user-agents generate quotes for the  
>>> q element
>>> This issue raises two complaints: (a) the draft instructs authors  
>>> to add quotes to Q elements manually; and (b) the draft makes no  
>>> clear user-agent recommendation regarding blockquote. I believe  
>>> both of these issues are now addressed, and the interoperability  
>>> issue with Q is addressed. The rendering section now requires that  
>>> user agents add quotes to Q elements:
>>> Since rendering is generally specified and BLOCKQUOTE doesn't  
>>> require adding quotes, it should be assumed UAs are expected not  
>>> to add quotes, as would be consistent with existing practice.
>>> Thus, I believe the problems raised by this issue are solved in  
>>> current drafts. I suggest closing.
>> a) The current draft ( 
>> ) says:
>> Quotation punctuation (such as quotation marks) must not appear  
>> immediately before, after, or inside q elements; they will be  
>> inserted into the rendering by the user agent.
>> I think this could be phrased less ambiguous along the line of this:
>> Authors SHOULD not use quotation punctuation (such as quotation  
>> marks) immediately before, after, or inside q elements, because  
>> user agents MUST insert them into the rendering, unless the default  
>> rendering is overridden by CSS.
>> b) The current draft ( 
>>  ) doesn't have any recommendations regarding the blockquote  
>> element. I'd suggest:
>> [...] Content inside a blockquote must be quoted from another  
>> source, whose address, if it has one, should be cited in the cite  
>> attribute. [NEW]User agents MUST NOT insert quotation punctuation  
>> (such as quotation marks) into the rendering.[/NEW]
>> I'd appreciate if any people who are more experienced than me would  
>> shape this text into something that is suited to go into a draft.  
>> When the current draft is reflecting some wording to that effect I  
>> wouldn't object closing Issue-48, but I think amending is necessary  
>> before that can be done.

Received on Thursday, 3 September 2009 15:54:25 UTC