- From: John Lewis <gleemax@myrealbox.com>
- Date: Sat, 16 Apr 2005 20:39:13 -0500
On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 19:31:49 -0400, fantasai <fantasai.lists at inkedblade.net> wrote: > John Lewis wrote: >> On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 15:08:58 -0400, fantasai >> <fantasai.lists at inkedblade.net> >> wrote: >> >>> I agree that <q> has problems, particularly with en-US style >>> punctuation. However, if the italics is going to be in the CSS, I >>> think the quotation marks should also be there. >> But the italic text needs* to be applied via CSS. The quotation marks >> could >> be written by the author. In plain text, for example, quotation marks >> are >> content, and italic text must be faked (_like this_ to represent >> underlining) or done without. In UAs that don't support CSS (or don't >> support >> it fully), written quotation marks will still work. > > By that argument, in UAs that don't support CSS, italics won't work > either. Italics was supported in UAs before CSS existed. AFAIK generated quotes haven't enjoyed the same support. What I was trying to say is that even CSS browsers that support font-style do not necessarily support generated quotes. Any browser that implements CSS1, for instance, or one of the many browsers with partial CSS2(.1) support. We can't assume that because font-style is supported that quotes/content will be too. One is basic (implemented more or less universally), and the other isn't. Either way will work, but I still prefer manual quotation marks. I haven't seen any reason why generated quotation marks will be better. -- John Lewis
Received on Saturday, 16 April 2005 18:39:13 UTC