- From: Jukka K. Korpela <jukka.k.korpela@kolumbus.fi>
- Date: Mon, 09 Sep 2013 22:50:35 +0300
- To: HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>
2013-09-09 22:30, Steve Faulkner wrote: > Hi Jukka, do you have any sources for your statements? > > I have been looking for guidance on this online, but cannot find any. > Sources such as the Chicago manual of Style do not appear to cover this. Chicago and friends tend to deal with printed publications. The mention how online resources should be handled in print, but not online publishing as such. But the fundamental principles are the same: a direct quotation shall retain the original, except when changes are explicitly permitted. My copy of Chicago is 15th edition, but I suppose this has not changed: clauses 11.8 through 11.10 describe permissible changes, and the obvious intent is that other changes are not permitted. The most relevant part is 11.9, which allows typographic style to be overridden or ignored, "as long as the intent and emphasis of the original style are maintained. For example, the typeface or font should be chanegd to agree with the surrounding text." With <b> vs. <strong> vs. something else, it cannot, in general, be known what the intent and emphasis are, given the debates on them. So a quotation should allow the same interpretations, with the same allusions, as the original. When quoting a web page in print, you must reduce the markup and styling to something definite and physical, normally lumping both <b> and <strong> simply as bold face. When quoting an HTML document in an HTML document, there is no such need, and hence no such right. -- Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
Received on Monday, 9 September 2013 19:50:58 UTC