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

2013-09-09 18:08, Steve Faulkner wrote:
> 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.
That’s a good question, and worth considering when discussing the phrase 
elements in general. But within a quotation, whatever the difference 
might be, it should be retained simply because it is the right thing 
(morally, scientifically, and legally). Whatever is presented as direct 
quote should be an exact reproduction of the quoted part of work, except 
when changes are necessitated and indicated.

It’s an author’s choice (good or bad, informed or not) to use <b> vs. 
<strong>. In quotations, as well as in translations, this choice should 
be honored. Whether an average reader notices the difference does not 
matter. What matters is that it *may* be noticeable, e.g. when a special 
user style sheet is used, or when someone reads the HTML source and 
yells out “oh, the author is misusing the <b> element!!!”

Adding emphasis of some kind to a quotation is generally accepted when 
it is clearly identified as not being part of the original work. 
Regarding <mark>, it would be acceptable to use it to indicate changes 
(like annotations) made to quoted text, provided that all user agents 
will communicate this idea to users (this isn’t going to happen, really) 
or that the change is clearly explained in text (which puts us to square 
one).

-- 
Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/

Received on Monday, 9 September 2013 16:08:31 UTC