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

Hi Jukka,

"or <blockquote> is in rendering, the default styling"

this is not the case as pointed out previously, screen readers allow
navigation and provide identification of blockquote.

>Practices differ, and if specifications described <blockquote> and <cite>
by referring to their impact on default rendering only, this would in no
way >prevent authors from using them for quotations or citations. And
"something new" would not be defined, or needed.

>From looking at usage of cite, authors use cite primarily to identify
authorship, not to render in italics.

blockquote has been abused due to its default style, which i guess is the
reason the draconion prohibition was put on it "must only include content
from another source", but this actually made it less useful for reasonable
uses (including notes/citations etc) along with quoted text.

Which is why I have proposed (in the editors draft) a relaxing of the
constraints.

Note: I have taken the liberty of paraphrasing you in an update to the
blockquote definition

"The content of a
blockquote<http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/html/master/grouping-content.html#the-blockquote-element>may
be abbreviated, may have context added or may have added in-line
notes.
Any such additions or changes to quoted text must be indicated in the text
(at the text level). This may mean the use of notational conventions or
explicit remarks, such as "emphasis mine".

http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/html/master/grouping-content.html#the-blockquote-element



--

Regards

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


On 9 September 2013 10:05, Jukka K. Korpela <jukka.k.korpela@kolumbus.fi>wrote:

> 2013-09-09 11:24, Steve Faulkner wrote:
>
>> we are paving a cowpath with <cite> (and <blockquote>), the default
>> styling of cite by browsers should not be a deciding factor. The style is
>> and can be overridden
>>
>
> Cows have taken different paths, really. Moreover, since the only known
> actual effect of <cite> or <blockquote> is in rendering, the default
> styling is relevant. Why would you use markup that has no other effect than
> indenting or italic and then start wondering how to override that effect? I
> know that I am exaggerating a bit, since the markup may have marginal
> effects beyond visual rendering, but most of the effects presented in
> discussions over the years (including those by my previous HTML Purist
> self) are just imaginary.
>
>
>
>> "When a practice is already widespread among authors, consider adopting
>> it rather than forbidding it or inventing something new."
>> http://www.w3.org/TR/html-**design-principles/#pave-the-**cowpaths<http://www.w3.org/TR/html-design-principles/#pave-the-cowpaths>
>>
>>  Practices differ, and if specifications described <blockquote> and
> <cite> by referring to their impact on default rendering only, this would
> in no way prevent authors from using them for quotations or citations. And
> "something new" would not be defined, or needed.
>
> There seems to be an implied idea that specifications must address all
> frequently asked questions like "which markup do I use for.... ?" But in
> fact, many questions of that kind are not addressed at all, or need to be
> addressed. When markup has no functional impact (browsers and search
> engines treat it blindly, possibly applying default styling, but nothing
> more), the choice of markup becomes a matter of coding style.
>
> Coding style may be a personal decision by an author, or a decision in a
> community, as in an enterprise where different people are expected to apply
> the same coding style. Either way, HTML specifications need not address the
> issues. A company or an educational institute may well require that HTML
> documents use a particular coding style for quotations; it will most likely
> contain many requirements far beyond anything that could sensibly be
> included in an HTML specification.
>
> --
> Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~**jkorpela/ <http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/>
>
>
>