- From: Jukka K. Korpela <jukka.k.korpela@kolumbus.fi>
- Date: Sat, 07 Sep 2013 23:06:48 +0300
- To: public-html@w3.org
2013-09-07 22:18, Steve Faulkner wrote: > I have been mulling over use of <mark> > http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/html/master/text-level-semantics.html#the-mark-element to > denote notes added to quoted text What would be the practical impact of such markup? Old browsers ignore <mark>, new browsers render it with yellow background. The interpretation of the rendering is left to the reader, who has no way of knowing why it is highlighted (except for the small fraction of HTML-aware readers who peek at the source code). What HTML5 CR seems to be saying about <mark> inside quotations is that it adds highlighting that is not present in the original. You seem to be saying that it could (also) indicate text added to the quotation. Either way, it would be incorrect, and often even illegal, quotation. Legal quotation consists of exact copy of a part of some work, with no changes except as necessitated by the purpose of quotation and clearly indicated as changes. There are conventional ways of indicating changes, and HTML markup is not part of such conventions. It is of course acceptable to explain changes explicitly in the text, such as "emphasis mine" or, more clearly, "emphasis added to the quotation using yellow background color", or even "words added to the quotation have been indicated using yellow background color". The problem, of course, is that <mark> might be rendered in a multitude of ways. The bottom line is that changes can be reliably indicated only by using conventional devices, like brackets, in the text, not with styling, still less with HTML markup, which has no fixed styling. -- Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
Received on Saturday, 7 September 2013 20:07:09 UTC