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,

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>&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 15:09:41 UTC