Re: Change back the semantics of <cite>

Smylers On 09-09-11 02.03:

> Leif Halvard Silli writes:
>> Smylers On 09-09-11 00.16:
>>> Leif Halvard Silli writes:


>>> Why does your name need marking up at all there?
>> You'll find the answer in the thread and in bug 7508 and 7509. But
>> I'll recap: The answer is the same the answer to why a it is necessary
>> to use a <dfn> inside the <dt>
> Why is it the same?  Defining instances are generally marked up in
> running text, so that they may be distinguished to users in some way and
> so they can be linked to.  If a term is defined in a list those reasons
> may still apply, and an author can choose to continue to use <dfn> for
> the same reason it's used elsewhere.  (Note that HTML5 gives an example
> of using <dfn> like this; it doesn't say it's "necessary" to do so.)
> Conversely, names are normally not marked up at all.  They can continue
> not to be marked up at all when in the <dt> of a <dialog>.

I would have to say that I don't think that you /have/ to use 
<cite> inside a dialog anymore than you /have/ to use <dfn> in a 

>> - despite the fact that it is a _definition list_.
> HTML5 calls it a "description list", and gives examples of its use where
> the terms are not definitions in the <dfn> sense.  For example it shows
> using <dt> in a <dl> to declare the authors of a document; those people
> are not the definition of the word "authors", 

So, do you consider that /wording/ redefines the semantics of <dl> 
by calling it a description list? I'll answer no, for you. After 
all, HTML 4 devised  DL for dialogs ...

>so <dfn> would be inappropriate in that <dt>.

Of course.

>> Namely: If you stuff the <dt> with extra information - such as the
>> draft gives examples for w.r.t. glossary lists - then it is necessary
>> to single out which of the words in in <dt> that is being defined.
>> Actually, the draft says that in a glossary one should _always_ use
>> <dfn>
> No it doesn't.  It has examples which use it, but there's no "should" or
> "always" in there.

«The dt element itself, when used in a dl element, does not 
indicate that its contents are a term being defined, but this can 
be indicated using the dfn element.»

This is even a must! You /must/ use <dfn> if you want to indicate 
that the content of <dt> is a term being defined.

>> - regardless of whether the <dt> contains only the exact, defined term
>> or not. But otherwise it is the same idea that I am talking about.
> Not really.  It shows that purpose of the <dfn> is not to single out
> part of the <dt> (because there isn't always something to single it out
> from).  The purpose of <dfn> there is exactly the same as <dfn> would
> have anywhere else in the document.

I understand that <dt> may "single out" the entire content of the 

>>>> Hence I propose the definition to change. The new text should say
>>>> that <cite> is not a mark-up for "name" or "person". However, it
>>>> is an element for marking up a source. And if the source is a
>>>> person, then <cite> may indeed be used to mark up the reference to
>>>> that person.
>>> Why is having such an element useful?
>> No one has so far suggested obsoleting <cite> .
> Right.  <cite> as defined in HTML5 

If you start saying "as currently defined", then you don't convey 
the feeling that you have HTML 5 in your pocket that much ...

> is useful for marking up titles of
> works, since such are usually distinguished to users in some way. 

I only hear a styling argument here.

> That  use can be met by leaving the definition of <cite> as it already is in
> HTML5.

If you only see it as a variant of <i>, then that use can be 
served even if you remove <cite>.

> You haven't answered why having an element with your definition would be
> useful.

Yes I have. The answer is semantic. A source is a source. It 
doesn't have to be styled any particular way to be a source.


>> I arrived at this from an actual use case.  I have explained above why
>> it can be necessary to single out who - in the <dt> element of the
>> dialog container element - is the source.
> I'm afraid you haven't.  You've asserted that you want to mark up the
> source, but haven't explained why that is useful.

I have only heard styling arguments from you for why you want to 
use <cite> to mark up works. I too have given styling arguments 
for why cite is good for marking up people sources.

>> But I can say more:
>> One will often, in a dialog, need to have different styles for  
>> participant versus other information.
> Not everything which is styled differently needs to have semantics in
> HTML5.  Where the styling is merely presentational classes can be used.

You are giving the perfect argument for why <cite> should be used 
for people sources: If people sources should be styled differently 
from other sources, then that is just a styling problem - it can 
be solved via presentational classes.

>> I have merely chosen the same approach as Ian suggests for glossaries
>> in the draft: Single out the center word - the "defined term" so to
>> speak - instead of marking up what is /not/ the center word.
> No you haven't.  Ian suggests using <dfn> to mark up defining terms
> consistently wherever they are in the document (in running text, or are
> part of a <dl> <dt>, or as the entirety of a <dl> <dt>).

Actually, Ian has singled out the use of <dfn> inside <dt> - 
/that/ is a special case. I say the same about <cite> used inside 

> You suggest a need to mark up names just in the case that they form part
> of a <dialog> <dt>

To show that it is a source, yes.

> (but not when they are in running text or an entire
> <dialog> <dt>), 

I /do/ suggest using <cite> also outside <dl>/<dialog>.

> and to mark them up with an element which elsewhere is
> used to convey titles of works.

Circle argumentation, in my book. The "elsewhere" is /outside/ 
HTML 5. Elsewhere cite is use for citation, including of people.
leif halvard silli

Received on Wednesday, 16 September 2009 04:21:35 UTC