- From: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
- Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2009 04:44:49 +0200
- To: Toby Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk>
- CC: Smylers <Smylers@stripey.com>, HTMLWG <public-html@w3.org>
Toby Inkster On 09-09-13 20.02: > On 11 Sep 2009, at 16:45, Smylers wrote: > >> But what does it actually achieve? In what way does a user benefit >> from >> a document having all the people mentioned marked up as such? [...] > If HTML 2 and HTML 4 differ on the definition of <cite>, it seems > more sensible to go with either the wider definition (as that will > encompass the narrower one) or the more recent definition, as these > will be compatible with more existing content. The HTML 4 definition > is both the wider definition and the more recent one, so seems the > way to go. Indeed. Smyler has only given styling reasoning for reserving <cite> for works. He has likewise said that one may use e.g. <span class="peopleSource"> for people sources. But, well, if the author has this /styling/ wish that people sources and other sources should /display/ differently, the add that class to <cite>, then: <cite class="peopleSource">. The problem, though, is how <cite> is currently defined in HTML 5. In HTML 4 it represents a reference to a source - human or not. Whereas HTML 5 currently says that it represents: "the title of a work [....] This can be a work that is being quoted or referenced in detail (i.e. a citation), or it can just be a work that is mentioned in passing." By HTML 4's definition, a work should not be marked up with <cite>, unless that work is being mentioned as a source. -- leif halvard silli
Received on Wednesday, 16 September 2009 02:45:32 UTC