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

Steve Faulkner, Mon, 9 Sep 2013 10:30:42 +0100:

>> Is it common to have code marked as quoted?
> 
> I may not have been clear, what some people are concerned about is the
> provenance of code inside the blockquote
> 
> example:
> 
> <blockquote> This is <em>emphasised</em></blockquote>
> 
>  The source could have been
> 
> This is <i>emphasised</i>
> 
> or
> 
> This is <font style="font-style:italic">emphasised</font>


Or: This is <cite>emphasised</cite>


> I think that the provenance of any code used inside a blockquote should
> only be assumed to be from the author(s) of the page the blockquote is used
> on.

You say “code”. The question is “element”. Or rather, the content of 
the element. 

The “trend“ of the spec right now is to assume that <cite> represents 
*added* content.  It is legitimate to use <cite> outside quotations and 
it gets double meaning.  But the “trend” wants to assume two meanings - 
that it sometimes can have double meaning of citation *and* added.  But 
HTML5 only has *one* element which means ”added content”, namely <ins>.

There is no real-world disagreement about the fact that the the 
responsibility for whether one uses <em>, <i> or <font> is the the 
author of the current page.  That is, in my view, a straw man. The real 
disagreement starts with <cite> which and the question of whether it 
can be taken to mean “added content” - a meaning it doesn’t have 
outside <blockquote> and <q>.
-- 
leif halvard silli

Received on Monday, 9 September 2013 10:27:51 UTC