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

I agree with Steve.
Definitely

GianLuca

>----Messaggio originale----
>Da: whatwg@stevefenton.co.uk
>Data: 10/09/2013 9.19
>A: "Jukka K. Korpela"<jukka.k.korpela@kolumbus.fi>
>Cc: "public-html@w3.org"<public-html@w3.org>
>Ogg: Re: is it necessary to disambiguate (using markup) inline   notes,
citations    and original markup? [was] use of &lt;mark&gt; to denote notes  
in  quoted text
>
>
>On 10 Sep 2013, at 07:59, "Jukka K. Korpela" <jukka.k.korpela@kolumbus.fi> 
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, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
>> 
>> 
>
>Steve 
>

Received on Wednesday, 11 September 2013 11:14:58 UTC