- From: Reinier Kaper <rp.kaper@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2013 11:03:43 -0400
- To: Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>
- Cc: HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAAz96OsvPTY-Ugz5uqQePSzJm56pPC9bw4K7yDaFPjb_yuMvTw@mail.gmail.com>
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><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 15:04:14 UTC