- From: Jukka K. Korpela <jukka.k.korpela@kolumbus.fi>
- Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2013 15:30:00 +0300
- To: Bruce Lawson <brucel@opera.com>
- CC: HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>
2013-08-23 15:08, Bruce Lawson wrote: > On 23 August 2013 12:52, Jukka K. Korpela <jukka.k.korpela@kolumbus.fi> wrote: >> The old definition is vague. So is the proposed new one. We have to live >> with the cite element, but not love it. Minimal change (or actually, no >> change to HTML 4.01) is the best way. > This change is to restore the HTML 4.01 way. Rather, to keep it. > By removing the ability > to cite authors, lots of people have spent a good deal of time > attempting to find other ways of marking that up, leading to potential > code bloat (wrapping blockquotes in <figure>, for example, so they can > use a <figcaption> instead of <cite> inside / next to a <blockquote>). If you want to use some special markup when mentioning an author, you can use <span> or, if italic is suitable as default rendering, <i>. In most cases, there is no practical reason to use any markup for an author. People could endlessly try to find ways to use markup for company names, for city names, for trademarks, etc. It becomes realistic only if there is a real chance of having some generally used software recognize such markup and use it in a useful manner that justifies the cost of adding it. -- Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
Received on Friday, 23 August 2013 12:30:21 UTC