RE: is it necessary to disambiguate (using markup) inline notes,citations and original markup? [was] use of <mark> to denote notes in quoted text

> From: Reinier Kaper [mailto:rp.kaper@gmail.com] 
> Sent: Sunday, September 08, 2013 12:52 PM
> 
> I feel <aside>  wouldn't be semantically correct in this case
> (the content is not tangentially related) and <note>  doesn't
> imply a "highlighted" part of the quote.

I agree, primarily because the <aside> doesn't denote what word(s) in particular warranted the aside, and doesn't scale to multiple (IMO).


> The example made by Adrian with the use of a <footer> 
> element seems like a good idea, although adding id's to the
> paragraphs doesn't seem very logical to me, I'd add it to
> the mark.

Let me expand my example the tiniest bit:

<blockquote>
I thought you said you were only going to use a half pound <mark><a href="#f1">[1]</a></mark> of pasta. Now whose <mark>[sic]</mark> going to eat all this stuff? Are you trying to make me fat? <mark><a href="#f2">[2]</a></mark>
  <footer>
     <p>John to Cindy on Saturday night.</p>
     <p id="f1">This accounts for the 2 cups of water he boiled.</p>
     <p id="f2">Clearly he was being snarky.</p>
  </footer>
</blockquote>

I added an <a href> pointing to the named anchor in the <footer>. Now it is linked and uses a pattern that is already in use and understood on the web. It also makes the use of <mark> nothing more than a styling element.

Or this:

<blockquote>
I thought you said you were only going to use a half pound <mark for="f1">[1]</mark> of pasta. Now whose <mark for="f2">[sic]</mark> going to eat all this stuff? Are you trying to make me fat? <mark>[2]</mark>
  <footer>
     <p>John to Cindy on Saturday night.</p>
     <p id="f1">This accounts for the 2 cups of water he boiled.</p>
     <p id="f2">Clearly he was being snarky.</p>
  </footer>
</blockquote>

Now I've added @for to the <mark> (leaning on your example), with behavior along the lines of a <label for> and an <input>. The problem here is that while the pattern is familiar, it's also new and not discoverable until the browsers implement the feature (or authors style it). So it's also not backward compatible.

I think this is over-engineering a reason to use <mark>.

I feel like my emails are me thinking this through aloud, and the more I think about it the more I think I wouldn't bother with <mark> when I already make pages without it that don't penalize users. It doesn't add enough to what I do to be useful.

Received on Sunday, 8 September 2013 19:27:55 UTC