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

Ah okay, I was never aware of that, I though elements like <em> and
<strong> had an impact on screen-readers (tone of voice).
The, if that's not the case, you're right about quoting the "original"
source, as long as the text remains unaltered.


On 9 September 2013 10:56, Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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>&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>).
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>

Received on Monday, 9 September 2013 15:04:14 UTC