- From: Erik Vorhes <erik@textivism.com>
- Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2009 10:36:42 -0500
On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 10:17 AM, Kristof Zelechovski<giecrilj at stegny.2a.pl> wrote: > ?1. If you cite a person, the person you cite does not become a citation > because of that. ?Putting the person inside the CITE element distorts the > meaning. If you are citing a person (either as someone worth quoting or as, say, the photographer of an image), how does using <cite> to identify the citation distort the meaning? > ?2. The example <CITE >Chaucer and the <CITE >Canterbury Tales</CITE >></CITE > is invalid because "Canterbury Tales" are not being cited, at > least not in the title page. Why not? It seems clear to me that one title is citing the other. > ?3. The semantic potential does not decrease uniformly with specificity. > Rather, there is an optimal value somewhere in the middle of specificity. > Arguably, that optimum is attained with CITE reserved for titles. Arguably, the optimum is attained with <cite> reserved for citations. > ?4. Of course titles are not always styled the same way. ?However, there is > a requirement that the presentation makes sense in most cases when CSS is > not supported. ?The cases where styling all titles in the same way makes the > information hard to understand are scarce. This doesn't explain why <cite> needs to be used exclusively used for titles. (And I didn't realize that HTML was really just for use as styling hooks. There's no audible difference between <cite style="font-style:normal;">MLA Handbook for Writers of Research Papers</cite> and <cite>MLA Handbook for Writers of Research Papers</cite>.) > ?5. Random markup errors a few pages do not constitute an obstacle here, > nor do errors in template code (they are ubiquitous once deployed but they > are easy to fix, at least at Wikipedia). Except that Wikipedia is not erroneous in its usage of <cite>. It is declaring conformance to XHTML 1.0 Transitional, which is based off of the HTML 4.01 specification, which defines <cite> as "a citation or a reference to other sources." To the issue of <cite> in HTML5, using <cite> as "title of work" provides for no distinction between editions or translations of works. > ?6. It does not mean anything to say "this is a citation"; this definition > is too ambiguous to be useful. I obviously disagree. "<cite> identifies a title" is too narrow a definition to be useful. Erik Vorhes
Received on Monday, 27 July 2009 08:36:42 UTC