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

Hi Adrian,

OK, so are you saying as I think Jukka was also, that no special markup is
needed to identify changes/additional text added inline to quoted text?

The conventional means using brackets, explanatory text, quotation marks
etc is adequate?

I am OK with that, I am just trying to explore what ways that existing
markup could be used to to disambigaute inline notes etc from the quoted
text.



--

Regards

SteveF
HTML 5.1 <http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/html/master/>


On 8 September 2013 00:51, 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 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>
>
>