- From: Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2013 15:56:30 +0100
- To: Reinier Kaper <rp.kaper@gmail.com>
- Cc: HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CA+ri+VkNM-oXVpBWVAYcYjHMQe2Yxv+Z7u3XSUhQrkYvfSawgw@mail.gmail.com>
Hi Reinier, >The only disadvantaged users would be those who depend on screen readers, the semantics of most text level elements are not conveyed although users can query the style info, but suggest that few do. -- Regards SteveF HTML 5.1 <http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/html/master/> On 9 September 2013 15:51, Reinier Kaper <rp.kaper@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Steve, > > Fair points! And maybe my example was focussed too much on HTML authors > sharing that piece as a quote. > > I see how it's problematic and maybe not clear enough "where to stop", so > maybe simply refrain from altering the actual text is the most we can do > and let it up to the author to decide what elements they want to use to > mimic the original 'styling'. > > The only disadvantaged users would be those who depend on screen readers, > as the contents inside the quote might not properly translate their > original meaning anymore. But then again, that might be up to the author to > provide. > > > On 9 September 2013 10:27, Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>wrote: > >> 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><span></tt> element.</p> >> <p>It has become increasingly popular to use the <code><i></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><span></code> element.</p> >>> <p>It has become increasingly popular to use the <code><i></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>). >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >
Received on Monday, 9 September 2013 14:57:39 UTC