- From: Bjartur Thorlacius <svartman95@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2011 16:56:10 +0000
On 7/15/11, Jukka K. Korpela <jkorpela at cs.tut.fi> wrote: > Should it? Even when the book has no URL? If you expect urn:isbn:? to > work anytime soon in any significant browser, you?re very optimistic. > Wikipedia and Amazon (among others) have all the mechanisms already. Such ISBN handlers could even be registered by JavaScripts. > Browsers currently treat <cite> just like <i> (except that it has a > different name). There is no sign of advance functionality emerging. It > does not matter how usable something is when it does not exist at all. > <Cite> is not nearly as useful as @cite. > I forgot to mention that the ISBN number should be included visibly in > the credits, especially because it is usually the simplest and sometimes > the only reasonable way to identify a book unambiguously (and can be > copied and pasted into a suitable bibliographic search form). It?s So you're saying that users should rather search for the term ISBN, select the following number, copy it, remove/add hyphens as necessary and then paste it to a suitable bibliographic search form? Instead of registering a suitable bibliographic search form once, and having the user agent do the hard work in a click or two? > metadata, but metadata that need not and should not be hidden but > presented in textual content. At most it might be included into elements > that are not initially displayed but become available when the user so > requests?possibly some day via the <details> element if browsers > implement it well. > But browsers need to be told that that number close to the quotation is an ISBN. And if you always hide it in <details>, user agents may be compelled to expand it by default, making it unusable for e.g. hiding answers to a quiz. > The cite attribute in <blockquote> should really be moved to the > non-recommended part of HTML. It hardly ever serves a useful purpose, > and it tends to mislead authors into including important information > _only_ in the attribute, which has no browser support worth mentioning > (despite having been in HTML for over 13 years). > Before you said <cite> was implemented as <i>, and your point is that the cite attribute is useless? They're barely related, @cite contains an URI, that an user agent might be able to use in an automated fashion. <Cite> contains a human-readable name of a work. That'll rarely be machine-readable.
Received on Friday, 15 July 2011 09:56:10 UTC