- From: Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2013 16:08:29 +0100
- To: Reinier Kaper <rp.kaper@gmail.com>
- Cc: HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CA+ri+VkXk51PPQMZ6q8-eJecgWfUTGRUCcS=4oHiW3e9V9n83Q@mail.gmail.com>
Hi Reinier, I am not saying that at some point the semantics will not be implemented, question is what is the difference between use of <b> and <strong> or <i> and <em>, how would such subtlety be conveyed usefully and given the rampant *misuse *how would understanding be increased by distinguishing between the two. -- Regards SteveF HTML 5.1 <http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/html/master/> On 9 September 2013 16:03, Reinier Kaper <rp.kaper@gmail.com> wrote: > 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 15:09:41 UTC