W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > wai-xtech@w3.org > August 2007

Re: Alternate Additional Attribute Set for a Single Quote Element

From: Robert Burns <rob@robburns.com>
Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2007 03:14:59 -0500
Message-Id: <47251481-1277-410D-A943-0C45E911939D@robburns.com>
Cc: wai-xtech@w3.org
To: "Dave Pawson" <dave.pawson@gmail.com>

On Aug 2, 2007, at 2:51 AM, Dave Pawson wrote:

> On 02/08/07, Robert Burns <rob@robburns.com> wrote:
> dp.
>>> I think that argument is flawed, relying on structure rather than
>>> markup?
>>> I don't believe it addressed the inline vs block usage that Gregory
>>> enables
>>> explicitly via markup.
>> My proposal relies on the structure of the markup. So it does rely on
>> markup.
> I differentatiate between markup, explicit to contained content  
> (Gregory's
> proposal) and the relationship between markup (xpath expressions)
> that you propose.

I see. I'm not really proposing xpath expressions. This would simply  
involve a DOM attribute and CSS pseudo-class selectors to  
differentiate between quotation elements that were "structural" from  
those that were "phrase" (which I think is a better language to use  
here because it is more semantic and less presentational than  
"block"/"inline"). This could be extended to Gregory's proposal for  
nested quotations as well, though those could be handled through  
child and ancestor selectors and DOM tree traversal APIs.

My proposal on this also includes DOM APIs and CSS selectors to  
change presentation on a threshold of a certain number of words so  
that presentation can change to a block style quotation even for  
phrase quotations exceeding a certain number of words.


>> <q><p>Many authors use improper markup using divs as their only block
>> level division.</p></q>
>> The above is block level and would be returned from the DOM API that
>> way and made available as a CSS class selector.
> An algorithm would suppose that was the intent, is that correct?

Right. The algorithm would use introspection on the quotation element  
to determine it's current state. The author would determine the value  
of the DOM attribute by what content model the author employed within  
the quotation element.

>>> Also, relying on the appropriate codepoint for quotes could result
>>> in confusion
>>> depending on the editor used.
>> Again, my proposal does not rely on the code point at all. It relies
>> on the markup contained within the Q or QUOTE (or even BLOCKQUOTE)
>> elements.
> Sorry, I refer to the use of the quote character which you mentioned.

The quote characters I mention are actually unrelated to the portion  
of my proposal for an algorithm to determine the  content model (in  
other words that proposal is completely independent of this proposal  
except that they both relate to the quotation elements) Either one  
could be done without need to do the other.

>> The only thing that would be added by explicit attributes (as Gregory
>> suggested) would be the possibility of an incongruence between the
>> contents of the element and the value set for the attribute. For
>> example:
>> <quote type="inline" ><p>Many authors use improper markup using divs
>> as their only block level division.</p></quote>
>> This would be errant markup.
> Errant? Invalid to the schema? I don't think XML defines 'errant'  
> markup.

Yes I meant errant in this case as invalid (i.e., the author made an  
error in his markup).

>>> I think SGML / XML should use markup rather than structure to infer
>>> semantics.
>> I agree. The code points I refer to is to deal with the situation
>> where authors want to include quotation marks in their markup.
> For which, CSS should be used? It is either decoration / style or  
> content.
> In this case I'd suggest decoration.

I agree (as an author). I would much prefer to provide quotation  
marks through CSS. However, this proposal (which is separate from the  
content model algorithm proposal) is to deal with authors and UAs  
(Internet Explorer) that prefer to handle quotations with quotation  
marks. In other words I'm proposing we provide both a graceful way to  
deal with quotation elements that include quotation marks (by  
instructing aural UAs to ignore the boundary quotation marks) and  
provide a way to let authors use a single quote element independent  
of the content model required for the direct quotation (again  
separate proposals; related only through quotations).

>> That's the only reason I introduce the specific Unicode ode points.
> Sorry, I misinterpreted.

No problem. I know it's a lot to digest. Many reader's eyes just  
gloss over.

Take care,
Received on Thursday, 2 August 2007 08:15:08 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:25:17 UTC