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

Because that's what a (block)quote is; the original contents of the quoted
source. ;-)

Obviously stuff like this comes from print, where you can't easily use the
exact (underlying) contents of a quote (you might not have the same
typeface for example), but in HTML this is very possible and (for the sake
of accuracy) very welcome.

To give you an example. I write an article about the proper use of the span
tags to display icons, which contains mark-up, like so (I'll write it in
markup):

<p>In my opinion, the only semantically sound way to mark up your icons is
with the use of the <code>&lt;span&gt;</code> element.</p>
<p>It has become increasingly popular to use the <code>&lt;i&gt;</code>
element, but this has <b>implied semantics</b> and is not to be used for
CSS specific purposes.</p>

Now, if you would use (part of) this text as a source for a blockquote, it
is *essential* that the original mark-up is preserved, otherwise it's
meaning and possibly 'soundness' might get lost.

If someone would arbitrarily change my <b> elements to <strong> elements,
it would first of all not be a quote (the source has been altered) and
second of all it conveys a (slightly) different message.

I can only imagine it gets worse when more elements are used in the source
and quite honestly I don't see why you *wouldn't* want to keep the original
source ;-).

Thoughts?


On 9 September 2013 09:03, Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Reineer,
>
> "I agree with Yucca here. The quote should contain its original contents
> if it's from a source that allows it (e.g. HTML)"
>
> why?
>
>
>
> --
>
> Regards
>
> SteveF
> HTML 5.1 <http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/html/master/>
>
>
> On 9 September 2013 13:54, Reinier Kaper <rp.kaper@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> 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>).
>>
>>
>