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

My replies also inline and thoughts at the bottom.


On 7 September 2013 19:51, Adrian Roselli <Roselli@algonquinstudios.com>wrote:

>
> 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 think exposing that to the user is the job of the browser, this proposal
is limited to markup.
You have a valid point when it comes to non-hover state capable devices
though and I only suggested the title attribute as it's already there and
universal, but I agree there might be better ways.

In short: the goal seems to be to be able to use a quote, but let the
author emphasize or highlight a part of it that is somehow connected to the
context.
The mark element alone seems insufficient, it doesn't convey any other
meaning than "this stands out from the text and has some sort of meaning".
Explaining what that meaning is, is the challenge.


>
>
> > 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.
>

Assuming you meant 'without' ;-) Yes the context is missing, so how can we
link it to other context and / or convey meaning of the marked text?


>
>
> > 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.
>

Agreed, that would not be very useful and it's also one of the biggest
issues with mark-up: it should be separated from the visuals. Unfortunately
not all authors are aware of that, so the more explicit we can make
elements, the better,


>
> 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>
>
>
Okay so focussing on the semantics here, what would be the most appropriate
way to convey the meaning of the marked text?
Let's say we have a quoted piece of text and we want to "take" a small part
of it and elaborate on it.

If there's no appropriate element for it, then one could be created if
there's enough use-cases. The mark element seems to partially express the
right meaning (e.g. "this piece is of some sort of relevance"), but how do
we link it to the context?

How about the following markup. How could we link the 'marked' piece to the
explanation?
(Granted, the mark-up is a little elaborate this way)

<figure>
  <blockquote>
    <p>"I thought you said that you were only using a <mark>half
pound</mark> of pasta"</p>
    <cite>John Doe</cite>
  </blockquote>
  <figcaption>The source of the confusion when John accidentally boiled too
much water for the pasta. He mistakenly assumed only half a pound of pasta
was used.</figcaption>
</figure>