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

On 10 Sep 2013, at 07:59, "Jukka K. Korpela" <> wrote

> 2013-09-10 9:53, Steve Fenton wrote:
>> I strongly disagree with the idea that the markup, typesetting, typeface or paper colour must be preserved when quoting text.
> That's a strawman argument: the issue is whether markup is to be preserved, not paper color.

It is highly unlikely that you would sufficiently change meaning using only markup and in the examples you give, the original markup has no meaning - because of invalid markup, markup that isn't semantic or markup that is stylistic. Hence my argument extending into stylistic matters. If we are to start on logical fallacies, may I remind you that by summarising my argument as "paper colour" you are living in something of a glass house. I consider that a distortion of my argument.

>>  That is definitely not what is intended by the distortion clause, which protects against edits that affect the meaning or against false context.
> Changing <b> to <strong> or vice versa affects, or may affect, the meaning.

This example adds semantic meaning in a way likely to match the original intention. Perhaps the original author actually intended emphasis. That wouldn't significantly alter the meaning of the text.

It is much easier to quote a shorter text, to leave it out of context and widen its interpretation than it is to adjust the intention using markup.

Although semantic use of HTML tags adds meaning, the use of the word "meaning" in this case is vastly different to the use of the word when we talk about the meaning of quoted text.

I don't think HTML authors in general would accept this constraint of mandatory preservation of HTML when quoting an HTML source.

> -- 
> Yucca,


Received on Tuesday, 10 September 2013 07:20:04 UTC