W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > September 2013

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

From: Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2013 20:06:18 +0100
Message-ID: <CA+ri+V=wBdfj8B2-LO9Sh3TSohDHT3TdWwHcXe=q0gHJbeNyQQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Jukka K. Korpela" <jukka.k.korpela@kolumbus.fi>
Cc: HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>
Hi Jukka,

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.
>

So if I copy some text then take that text and put it in a blockquote,
without copying the underlying code it includes, it is wrong " (morally,
scientifically, and legally)"?

I find that difficult to accept. In many cases an author has limited
control over the way their content is marked up or the person (or machine)
doing the is not the author of the text, in many cases where a quote is
sourced is not the primary source, in many cases the primary source is not
a HTML document.

--

Regards

SteveF
HTML 5.1 <http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/html/master/>


On 9 September 2013 17:08, Jukka K. Korpela <jukka.k.korpela@kolumbus.fi>wrote:

> 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.
>>
> Thatís 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.
>
> Itís an authorís 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 ďoh, the
> author is misusing the <b> element!!!Ē
>
> 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 isnít 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/ <http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/>
>
>
>
Received on Monday, 9 September 2013 19:07:28 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Saturday, 9 October 2021 18:46:05 UTC