W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > September 2009

RE: Speakers in Dialogues (Was: what is dt?)

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>
Message-ID: <00c601ca365b$8391e160$8ab5a420$@edu>
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
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.

Received on Tuesday, 15 September 2009 23:24:04 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Saturday, 9 October 2021 18:44:57 UTC