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

On 9 September 2013 06:42, 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/>
>
>
I agree with Yucca here. The quote should contain its original contents if
it's from a source that allows it (e.g. HTML), otherwise 'best practice'
should be used to convey the message.

If in a printed source something has been made bold, then it's up to the
author to decide if it's meant to be <strong> or <b>. Where <b> would be a
safe default (same goes for <em> and <i>).