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

Martin Kliehm On 09-09-03 17.18:

> filed two bug reports as promised.
> (q element)
> (blockquote)

> Martin Kliehm wrote:
>> Maciej Stachowiak wrote:

>>> The rendering section now requires that user agents add 
>>> quotes to Q elements:

>> 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:

ambiguous = open to or having several possible meanings or 
interpretations; [1]

I would say a change from MUST to SHOULD is not related to ambiguity.

>> 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.

Does this mean that authors *may* add quotation punctuation, 
provided they disable the automatic quoting via CSS? If so, then I 
support this change.

I will note that I have the same problem with <dialog> and also 
with <dl>: May one do  <dt>Him:</dt> ? Or should one do <dt>Him</dt>?

I think the logical answer for DL/DIALOG is that both should be 
possible, and thus ditto for <q>.

>> 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 would suggest adding

	unless the default rendering is overridden by CSS

so as to make it more congruent with what you said about <q>.

>> 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.

leif halvard silli

Received on Thursday, 3 September 2009 15:57:16 UTC