- From: John Foliot <jfoliot@stanford.edu>
- Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2009 16:23:21 -0700 (PDT)
- To: "'Smylers'" <Smylers@stripey.com>, <public-html@w3.org>
Smylers wrote: > > As defined by HTML5, a user agent can treat the contents of a <cite> > element as being the title of a work; if <cite> is expanded to do two > distinct things (both titles of works and conversation speakers) then > <cite> effectively becomes a semantically empty element two: a user > agent can't know which of the two meanings is intended, so can't presume > either of them. See, I don't 100% buy that. My trusty Merriam-Webster tells me that cite can point to either a work or its author: 1: to call upon officially or authoritatively to appear (as before a court) 2: to quote by way of example, authority, or proof <cites several noteworthy authors> 3 a: to refer to; especially: to mention formally in commendation or praise b: to name in a citation 4: to bring forward or call to another's attention especially as an example, proof, or precedent <cited the weather as a reason for canceling the picnic> [source: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cite ] Whilst 'citation' (same etymological root) defines itself as "an act of quoting" [ http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/citation ] If we are to follow through on these historical English definitions, than <cite> *could* be referencing the authoritive source, be it a work or an author. There is nothing semantically empty in that value IMHO, and so I would suggest that <cite> should be able to reference an author - it is a mechanism that directly links a quote to its source - a perfect solution to dialog. JF
Received on Tuesday, 15 September 2009 23:24:04 UTC