- From: Asmus Freytag (c) <asmusf@ix.netcom.com>
- Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2016 11:34:18 -0700
- To: ishida@w3.org, W3C Digital Publishing IG <public-digipub-ig@w3.org>, www International <www-international@w3.org>
On 4/26/2016 9:20 AM, ishida@w3.org wrote: > I figured it would be good to start a thread where we can address the > wider questions that kept popping up on the other thread that was > focused on the styling in the HTML5 rendering section. > > Here we get to put pros and cons for the existence of the q element, > suggestions for improving it, advice about when to not use it, ideas > about what's needed above and beyond it, etc. I think CSS styling of > quotes is probably in scope too, since it's hard to talk about the > markup without the styling support. > > It may help to limit the scope, however, just to *actual quotations*, > rather than all the other things people stick 'quote marks' around, > just in order to prevent a situation of herding cats. That's actually an interesting subject. I would think the triage here should be part of the discussion -- in the sense, of "is there a reasonable agreement for the 'natural' scope for the <q> element", and is that different from simply using it to get balanced quotes without having to type them. > > So please reply to this. It's likely to be a long thread with diverse > opinions. That's ok, but please try not to make unsubstantiated > assertions. Please use examples where you can, to help people get > your point. And please be kind to other thread participants. > > I'll contribute some ideas later when i can carve out some time. I do > have some concerns. At some point, i'll try to summarise the pros, > cons and suggestions. > > ri > >
Received on Tuesday, 26 April 2016 18:34:46 UTC