W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > August 2013

Re: updated cite definition - please review

From: Bruce Lawson <brucel@opera.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2013 09:12:35 +0100
Message-ID: <CAAFGRefTPb_8VrU7d6G60aVX0nP4fAwGfDi3X3T2X==29TqpQQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Jukka K. Korpela" <jukka.k.korpela@kolumbus.fi>
Cc: HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>
On 25 August 2013 19:19, Jukka K. Korpela <jukka.k.korpela@kolumbus.fi> wrote:
> If there were an element called <z> in HTML, with italic as default
> rendering in browsers, and some authors used it to denote names of trees,
> and some other to denote impressive things, and yet some other to mark up
> green things, and all the rest using for various purposes, it would be
> pointless to discuss what the "right" usage is or to collect statistics of
> existing usage, or to study definitions of <z> in past specifications. The
> only sensible thing that browsers, search engines, and other software could
> do, and would do, is to treat <z> as an element with unknown meaning and no
> effect, except for the default rendering (if it is an established practice).

But there isn't a <z> element, so this is a red herring. There *is* a
<cite> element, which used to be allowed for marking up titles of
works and authors of cited works, and now isn't because the spec
changed. There are people who wish to denote authors, and millions of
websites that already use <cite> to denote author name.

The fact that software can't tell the difference between a cited work
and a cited author is not a reason to keep the spec from specifying
common existing practice.
Received on Wednesday, 28 August 2013 08:13:02 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:16:34 UTC