- From: Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2013 13:49:01 +0100
- To: "Jukka K. Korpela" <jukka.k.korpela@kolumbus.fi>
- Cc: HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CA+ri+VkoFJt_fDrkzFwahuetVzPENR_U9JkjPcKf9Gp=KBiUXw@mail.gmail.com>
Hi Jukka, " then it seems natural to require that the original markup be preserved" why? who does this benefit? -- Regards SteveF HTML 5.1 <http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/html/master/> On 9 September 2013 11:42, Jukka K. Korpela <jukka.k.korpela@kolumbus.fi>wrote: > 2013-09-09 13:27, Leif Halvard Silli wrote: > >> 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. >> > > I don’t quite see what are referring to. > > If quoted text (no matter what, if any, markup is used to indicate it as a > quotation) is from a web page, or generally an HTML document, then it seems > natural to require that the original markup be preserved, unless there is a > technical reason that prevents it. Even if it is deprecated, obsolete, and > whatever, it’s what the author of the quoted page has chosen, so in a > quotation, it shall not be “fixed” any more than you are allowed to “fix” > factual errors or wrong opinions. > > If quoted text is from another format, such as plain text file or printed > book, then I would say that markup be used only when there is an obvious > choice in HTML, mainly <p> for paragraphs. For italic, for example, it’s > debatable whether we should use just <i>, leaving it to the recipient to > interpret it (as a reader of a printed book has to do), or whether we > should use e.g. <em> or <cite> or <var> if the author’s intent is clear. I > would say that given the semantic mess around <em> and friends, clear cases > really don’t exist. > > -- > Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~**jkorpela/ <http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/> > > >
Received on Monday, 9 September 2013 12:50:09 UTC