- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2009 07:53:47 +0000 (UTC)
On Wed, 3 Jun 2009, Andrew W. Hagen wrote: > > The cite element should be slightly changed. Under this proposal, the > cite element should be used only for titles of works, but may be used > for other things that web authors may wish to cite. This conforms with > how the cite element is used in practice. > > In the current HTML 5 specification, the cite element can only represent > a title of a work. This has several negative implications. First, it > goes against what the word "cite" means. The common English usage of the > word "cite" includes making reference to non-titular authorities. For > example, a writer may cite Aristotle. See > http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cite > > Furthermore, the current restriction makes the cite element useless for > works which do not have a title. See a list of such works at > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Untitled > > Trying to enforce a "titles-only" rule for the cite element is > impossible. The best that can be done is for small bands of advocates to > ringingly criticize any web author who breaks the rule. That is herding > cats. It is not as if browsers will refuse to render <cite > style="font-style: normal">Lincoln</cite> or that validators can > distinguish that from Gore Vidal's <cite>Lincoln</cite> (a historical > novel). The restrictive rule cannot be enforced. > > Finally, HTML 5 has a broad definition for some elements, such as kbd. > The kbd element can represent any form of user input, even if it is not > made with a keyboard. In current-work, one example is given of > <kbd><kbd>Shift</kbd>+<kbd>F3</kbd></kbd> for Shift+F3, even though in > that keyboard chord, the user would not actually input the "+" character > on the keyboard. It is so broadly defined that > <kbd>Shift</kbd>+<kbd>F3</kbd> would also be valid. Some elements, like > kbd, are very broad. > > Logical consistency cannot be perfectly maintained when specifying the > next version of HTML, but it should be a goal, and we ought to regret a > logical inconsistency between the cite element and elements like kbd. > One is narrow. The other is broad. Broadening the definition of cite > will not cause harm. It would only allow web authors to fully embrace > the cite element. > > This solution is workable. The cite element's default style is italics > in display mode, and this proposal would not change that. If a web > author writes: <cite>Aristotle</cite>, the web author can live with it > or re-style the cite element as desired. > > To conclude, slightly broadening the cite element would improve HTML. I don't really understand what problem this is solving. HTML4 actually defined <cite> more like what you describe above; we changed it to be a "title of work" element rather than a "citation" element because that's actually how people were using it. I don't think it makes sense to use the <cite> element to refer to people, because typographically people aren't generally marked up anyway. I don't really see how you'd use it to refer to untitled works. Thus, I don't really think it makes sense to make the change you propose. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Friday, 5 June 2009 00:53:47 UTC