- From: Adrian Roselli <Roselli@algonquinstudios.com>
- Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2013 20:37:35 +0000
- To: "Jukka K. Korpela" <jukka.k.korpela@kolumbus.fi>, "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>
> From: Jukka K. Korpela [mailto:jukka.k.korpela@kolumbus.fi] > Sent: Monday, September 09, 2013 3:25 PM > > 2013-09-09 22:06, Steve Faulkner wrote: > > > > 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)"? > > Yes. Just as it it similarly wrong to quote printed text in a printed book so that > the use of italic, bolding, or underlining is omitted. So let me get this straight... If I come across this (horrible, broken code) on a site: <h7>Why did the monkey fall out of the tree?</h7> <b><div>He was dead</b>.</div> Are you saying I cannot correct it when I stuff it into a <blockquote>? What if the HTML has a barrier to accessibility in it? That can make my site run afoul of legal requirements, which would put me on the hook for litigation/fines in order to not break a... what would I be breaking? It's certainly, IMO, more immoral to leave something broken for a disabled user than it is to change someone's underlying HTML when I quote it. If it's not clear, I am not buying into the approach you outline. [...]
Received on Monday, 9 September 2013 20:38:03 UTC