RE: use of <mark> to denote notes in quoted text

Responses inline, my thoughts at the bottom...


> From: Reinier Kaper [mailto:rp.kaper@gmail.com] 
> Sent: Saturday, September 07, 2013 5:29 PM
> 
> Why not use mark with a title attribute to explain why the text
> marked?

Is that the best way to expose the content to users? I understand AT software may read it aloud (will it?) but for a typical user, without putting the mouse over the <mark>ed text (assuming the device has a hover state), the explanation won't be visible.


> I don't see anything wrong with adding a mark element in a quoted
> text, it's simply a way of indicating that the author finds it of
> some sort of relevance.

But with an explanation, it just means either the original quote had it or the page author wanted to call attention to it, but there is no context.


> Alternatively you could explain it in a footer of the blockquote,
> but then it misses a direct link to the mark element.
> 
> Example:
> 
> <blockquote> 
>   <p> Good advice is always certain to be ignored, <mark
> title="This is exactly what I mean. You should be able to educate
> people, even if they don't ask for it."> but that's no reason not
> to give it.</mark></p> 
> </blockquote> 

Unless you put an ID on the mark and include an anchor link in the footer. Which seems like overkill.


My take on this is that in most printed quotes (that I see), I am used to seeing any special called out part of a quote with an inline [Ed.]. For example:

     "I thought you said that you were only using a half pound of pasta [Ed.: she never said any such thing]"

Marking that up seems redundant since any author asides within a quote should probably be most clearly delineated by text. I might then mark it up, using <mark>, as:

<blockquote>
I thought you said that you were only using a half pound of pasta <mark>[Ed.: she never said any such thing]</mark>
</blockquote>

In short, <mark> might make authors think they can skip the very clear inline messages in favor of what amounts to a color change with no explanation.

I also see this as potentially useful for [sic], but not a replacement:

<blockquote>
This is not my beautiful haus <mark>[sic]</mark>.
</blockquote>

Versus:

<blockquote>
This is not my beautiful <mark>haus</mark>.
</blockquote>

Received on Saturday, 7 September 2013 23:51:34 UTC