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

hi Reinier,

anecdotal point, when I copy text to reproduce i rarely copy the underlying
code.


Which consumers of the content would be disadvantaged by the following code:

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


or this

<p>In my opinion, the only semantically sound way to mark up your icons is
with the use of the span element.</p>

The meaning to real world users has not been changed.


I had a look at an online quote originally from zeldman:


Don’t worry about people stealing your design work. Worry about the day
> they stop.
>

depending on where i looked i found it in a h3 element, inside a blockquote
in a div in a blockquote, as link text block quoted, italicized or bolded

Did these code differences effect the meaning of the quote? I think not as
the meaning is in the way the words are strung together.


--

Regards

SteveF
HTML 5.1 <http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/html/master/>


On 9 September 2013 14:23, Reinier Kaper <rp.kaper@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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>).
>>>
>>>
>>
>