- From: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
- Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2013 12:27:22 +0200
- To: Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>
- Cc: Charles McCathie Nevile <chaals@yandex-team.ru>, HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>
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